ArticleInternational journal of molecular medicine2020
Sensitivity assessment of droplet digital PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Article in International journal of molecular medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
129 citing papers in PubMed, 226 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeted next-generation sequencing for pediatric community-acquired pneumonia pathogen detection: a single-center study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Droplet Digital PCR or Real-Time PCR as a Method for Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Plasma-Is There a Difference?Viruses · 2025Article
- Advances in Virus Biorecognition and Detection Techniques for the Surveillance and Prevention of Infectious Diseases.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Rapid and Sensitive Digital Droplet PCR Assays for Detecting HPV16 DNA in Liquid Biopsies.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
- Article
- Digital PCR outperforms quantitative real-time PCR for the detection and quantification of major periodontal pathobionts.Journal of oral microbiology · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of One-Step Reverse Transcription-Droplet Digital PCR for Plum Pox Virus Detection and Quantification from Plant Purified RNA and Crude Extract.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Extracellular RNAs from Whole Urine to Distinguish Prostate Cancer from Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Robust Double Emulsions for Multicolor Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting.Analytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Quadruplex Droplet Digital PCR Assay for Screening and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- TIM-3/Galectin-9 interaction and glutamine metabolism in AML cell lines, HL-60 and THP-1.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Extraction-Free Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Nasal Swab and Saliva Samples on a Single High-Throughput Platform.Journal of biotechnology and biomedicine · 2024Article
- COVID-19: An overview on possible transmission ways, sampling matrices and diagnosis.BioImpacts : BI · 2024Review
- Manually pressurized droplet digital PCR chip for rapid SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.Biomicrofluidics · 2024Article
- SARS-CoV-2 induced IgA vasculitis confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 tissue testing.JAAD case reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Long COVID: Molecular Mechanisms and Detection Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Wastewater analysis of Mpox virus in a city with low prevalence of Mpox disease: an environmental surveillance study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2023Article
- A duplex droplet digital PCR assay for absolute quantification and characterization of long self-amplifying RNA.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‑qPCR) is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection. Due to pre‑analytical and technical limitations, samples with low viral load are often misdiagnosed as false‑negative samples. Therefore, it is important to evaluate other strategies able to overcome the limits of RT‑qPCR. Blinded swab samples from two individuals diagnosed positive and negative for COVID‑19 were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT‑qPCR in order to assess the sensitivity of both methods. Intercalation chemistries and a World Health Organization (WHO)/Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)‑approved probe for the SARS‑CoV‑2 N gene were used. SYBR‑Green RT‑qPCR is not able to diagnose as positive samples with low viral load, while, TaqMan Probe RT‑qPCR gave positive signals at very late Ct values. On the contrary, ddPCR showed higher sensitivity rate compared to RT‑qPCR and both EvaGreen and probe ddPCR were able to recognize the sample with low viral load as positive even at 10‑fold diluted concentration. In conclusion, ddPCR shows higher sensitivity and specificity compared to RT‑qPCR for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in false‑negative samples with low viral load. Therefore, ddPCR is strongly recommended in clinical practice for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 and the follow‑up of positive patients until complete remission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.