Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28298452›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2017

Applications of Digital PCR for Clinical Microbiology.

Jane Kuypers, Keith R Jerome

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 134 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

134 citing papers in PubMed, 283 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Establishment of methods for the detection ofVeterinary and animal science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

74 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jane KuypersDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Department, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA kuypers@uw.edu.
Keith R JeromeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Department, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital PCR (dPCR) is an important new tool for use in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Its advantages over quantitative PCR (qPCR), including absolute quantification without a standard curve, improved precision, improved accuracy in the presence of inhibitors, and more accurate quantitation when amplification efficiency is low, make dPCR the assay of choice for several specimen testing applications. This minireview will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of dPCR compared to qPCR, its applications in clinical microbiology, and considerations for implementation of the method in a clinical laboratory.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPolymerase Chain Reactionapplicationsdigital PCRquantitative PCR

Identifiers

PMID28298452
PMCPMC5442518
OpenAlexW2600476130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.