Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35941654›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2022

Clinical validation of a multiplex droplet digital PCR for diagnosing suspected bloodstream infections in ICU practice: a promising diagnostic tool.

Jing Wu, Bin Tang, Yuzhen Qiu, Ruoming Tan, Jialin Liu, Jiang Xia, Jing Zhang, Jingjing Huang, Jieming Qu, Jingyong Sun and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Advances in the detection of Drug-Resistant bacteria: current trends and innovations.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jing Wu *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Bin Tang *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Yuzhen Qiu *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Ruoming TanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Jialin LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Jiang XiaPilot Gene Technologies (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd, No. 688 Bin'an Road, Hangzhou, 310051, China.
Jing ZhangPilot Gene Technologies (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd, No. 688 Bin'an Road, Hangzhou, 310051, China.
Jingjing HuangDepartment of Pharmacy, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Jieming QuDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Jingyong SunDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China. 13671578899@126.com.
Xiaoli WangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China. xiaoliwang0714@163.com.
Hongping QuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China. hongpingqu0412@hotmail.com.
Ruijin Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

Guangci discipline group construction of public health and disaster emergency center XKQ-09Medical engineering cross research fund of Shanghai Jiaotong University YG2019ZDA14National Key R&D Program of China 2018YFE0102400Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 19JC1413004Talent development project for Three-years action plan of Shanghai public health system construction GWV-10.2-YQ50
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDroplet digital PCR (ddPCR) has emerged as a promising tool of pathogen detection in bloodstream infections (BSIs) in critical care medicine. However, different ddPCR platforms have variable sensitivity and specificity for diverse microorganisms at various infection sites. There is still a lack of prospective clinical studies aimed at validating and interpreting the discrepant ddPCR results for diagnosing BSI in intensive care unit (ICU) practice.

methodsA prospective diagnostic study of multiplex ddPCR panels was conducted in a general ICU from May 21, 2021, to December 22, 2021. Paired blood cultures (BCs) and ddPCRs (2.5 h) were obtained synchronously to detect the 12 most common BSI pathogens and three antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes. Firstly, ddPCR performance was compared to definite BSI. Secondly, clinical validation of ddPCR was compared to composite clinical diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Thirdly, the positive rate of AMR genes and related analysis was presented.

resultsA total of 438 episodes of suspected BSIs occurring in 150 critical patients were enrolled. BC and ddPCR were positive for targeted bacteria in 40 (9.1%) and 180 (41.1%) cases, respectively. There were 280 concordant and 158 discordant. In comparison with BCs, the sensitivity of ddPCR ranged from 58.8 to 86.7% with an aggregate of 72.5% in different species, with corresponding specificity ranging from 73.5 to 92.2% with an aggregate of 63.1%. Furthermore, the rate of ddPCR+/BC- results was 33.6% (147/438) with 87.1% (128 of 147) cases was associated with probable (n = 108) or possible (n = 20) BSIs. When clinically diagnosed BSI was used as true positive, the final sensitivity and specificity of ddPCR increased to 84.9% and 92.5%, respectively. In addition, 40 bla

conclusionsThe multiplexed ddPCR is a flexible and universal platform, which can be used as an add-on complementary to conventional BC. When combined with clinical infection evidence, ddPCR shows potential advantages for rapidly diagnosing suspected BSIs and AMR genes in ICU practice.

Indexed as

SepsisBlood CultureHumansIntensive Care UnitsPolymerase Chain ReactionProspective StudiesBloodstream infections (BSIs)Clinical validationCritically ill patientsDiscordant resultsDroplet digital PCR

Identifiers

PMID35941654
PMCPMC9358819
OpenAlexW4290565908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.