ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2022
Comparison of reverse-transcription qPCR and droplet digital PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens of hospitalized patients.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory-based molecular test alternatives to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Development of a multiplex ddPCR assay for simultaneous absolute quantification of bacterial, fungal, and human DNA.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a fully automatic nucleic acid amplification system for detecting four respiratory pathogens.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Drug transporter mRNA expression and genital inflammation in South African women on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).AIDS research and therapy · 2025Article
- Optimization and application of digital droplet PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimen using commercially available kit.Biology methods & protocols · 2024Article
- Article
- Long-term study on wastewater SARS-CoV-2 surveillance across United Arab Emirates.The Science of the total environment · 2023Article
- Detection and Quantification of Klebsiella pneumoniae in Fecal Samples Using Digital Droplet PCR in Comparison with Real-Time PCR.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- A multiplexed, paired-pooled droplet digital PCR assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Association between SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load and Patient Symptoms and Clinical Outcomes Using Droplet Digital PCR.Viruses · 2023Article
- Comparison of the methods for isolation and detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in municipal wastewater.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is not only necessary for viral load monitoring to optimize treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients, but also critical for deciding whether the patient could be discharged without any risk of viral shedding. Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) is more sensitive than reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and is usually considered the superior choice. In the current study, we compared the clinical performance of RT-qPCR and ddPCR using oropharyngeal swab samples from patients hospitalized in the temporary Huoshenshan Hospital, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Results demonstrated that ddPCR was indeed more sensitive than RT-qPCR. Negative results might be caused by poor sampling technique or recovered patients, as the range of viral load in these patients varied significantly. In addition, both methods were highly correlated in terms of their ability to detect all three target genes as well as the ratio of copies of viral genes to that of the IC gene. Furthermore, our results evidenced that both methods detected the N gene more easily than the ORF gene. Taken together, these findings imply that the use of ddPCR, as an alternative to RT-qPCR, is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients.
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.