ArticleThe Journal of veterinary medical science2022
A newly developed droplet digital PCR for Ehrlichia canis detection: comparisons to conventional PCR and blood smear techniques.
Article in The Journal of veterinary medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Gel-Based Recombinase Polymerase Amplification Assay for Detection and Sequence Confirmation ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Development and Analytical Evaluation of a Novel Droplet Digital PCR Assay for Molecular Detection ofVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Using Digital PCR to Unravel the Occurrence of Piroplasmids,Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Widespread geographic distribution of filarioid nematodes in caribou (International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025Article
- Proteomics identification of overexpressed serum proteins in dogs withVeterinary world · 2023Article
- History and Current Status of Mediterranean Spotted Fever (MSF) in the Crimean Peninsula and Neighboring Regions along the Black Sea Coast.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Molecular detection and phylogeny ofVeterinary world · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine monocytic ehrlichiosis caused by Ehrlichia canis infection is a life-threatening vector-borne disease in dogs worldwide. Routine blood smear has very low sensitivity and cannot accurately provide a quantitative result. Conventional PCR (cPCR) and real-time PCR (qPCR) are widely used as molecular methods for E. canis detection. qPCR is quantitative but relies on standard curves of known samples. To overcome this difficulty, this study developed a new E. canis quantitative detection method, using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR). ddPCR was evaluated against cPCR and blood smears. PCR amplicons and genomic DNA (gDNA) from 12 microscopic positive samples were used to identify the limits of detection (LODs) in ddPCR and cPCR. Our ddPCR was assessed in 92 field samples, it was compared with cPCR and blood smears. ddPCR showed LOD=1.6 copies/reaction, or 78 times more sensitive than cPCR (LOD=126 copies/reaction), using PCR amplicons as a template, whereas both ddPCR and cPCR had equal LODs at 0.02 ng gDNA/reaction. In addition, ddPCR had 100% sensitivity and 75% specificity for E. canis detection compared to cPCR and no cross-reaction with other blood pathogens was observed. ddPCR identified more positive samples than cPCR and blood smear. ddPCR improved the overall performance of E. canis detection, with a better LOD and comparable sensitivity and specificity to cPCR. The technique might be helpful for diagnosis of E. canis in light infection, evaluating the number of E. canis and follow-up after treatment.
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.