Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31605465›Full record

ArticleMicrobial biotechnology2020

Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction for rapid broad-spectrum detection of bloodstream infections.

Yannick Wouters, Daisy Dalloyaux, Anke Christenhusz, Hennie M J Roelofs, Heiman F Wertheim, Chantal P Bleeker-Rovers, René H Te Morsche, Geert J A Wanten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Yannick WoutersIntestinal Failure Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5822-0255
Daisy DalloyauxIntestinal Failure Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Anke ChristenhuszIntestinal Failure Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hennie M J RoelofsIntestinal Failure Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Heiman F WertheimDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Chantal P Bleeker-RoversDepartment of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
René H Te MorscheIntestinal Failure Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Geert J A WantenIntestinal Failure Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) is a novel molecular technique that allows rapid quantification of rare target DNA sequences. Aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of the ddPCR technique to detect pathogen DNA in whole blood and to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ddPCR to detect bloodstream infections (BSIs), benchmarked against blood cultures. Broad-range primers and probes were designed to detect bacterial 16S rRNA (and Gram stain for differentiation) and fungal 28S rRNA. To determine the detection limit of ddPCR, 10-fold serial dilutions of E. coli and C. albicans were spiked in both PBS and whole blood. The diagnostic accuracy of ddPCR was tested in historically collected frozen blood samples from adult patients suspected of a BSI and compared with blood cultures. Analyses were independently performed by two research analysts. Outcomes included sensitivity and specificity of ddPCR. Within 4 h, blood samples were drawn, and DNA was isolated and analysed. The ddPCR detection limit was approximately 1-2 bacteria or fungi per ddPCR reaction. In total, 45 blood samples were collected from patients, of which 15 (33%) presented with positive blood cultures. The overall sensitivity of ddPCR was 80% (95% CI 52-96) and specificity 87% (95% CI 69-96). In conclusion, the ddPCR technique has considerable potential and is able to detect very low amounts of pathogen DNA in whole blood within 4 h. Currently, ddPCR has a reasonable sensitivity and specificity, but requires further optimization to make it more useful for clinical practice.

Indexed as

Escherichia coliMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionSepsisAdultCandida albicansDNA PrimersHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 28SSensitivity and SpecificityDNA PrimersRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 28S

Identifiers

PMID31605465
PMCPMC7111091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.