ArticleHeliyon2022
Comparative analysis of QS3D versus droplet digital PCR for quantitative measures of EGFR T790M mutation from identical plasma.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in genotypic antimicrobialresistance testing: a comprehensive review.Science China. Life sciences · 2025Review
- Advancing Pathogen Identification: The Role of Digital PCR in Enhancing Diagnostic Power in Different Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The capacity of QuantStudio™ 3D (QS3D) and droplet digital PCR (dPCR) for the detection of plasma Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor ( Methods: We recruited 72 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who initially respond to tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment but subsequently developed resistance. Two tubes of 10mL anticoagulant blood were collected and cfDNA was isolated from plasma. Identical cfDNA samples were analyzed for T790M mutation using QS3D and droplet dPCR in parallel. Results: T790M mutation was detected in 15 and 21 cfDNA samples by QS3D and droplet digital PCR, respectively. The 6 discordant samples showed low mutation abundance (∼0.1%) and the discrepancy is caused by the stricter threshold settings for QS3D dPCR. The overall agreement between the two methods was 91.7% (66/72). The median allele frequencies for QS3D dPCR and droplet dPCR to detect T790M mutation was 2.01% and 2.62%, respectively. There was no significance in mutation abundance detected by both methods. Both methods are highly correlated with allele frequencies and copy numbers in T790M wild type and mutant, with R Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that QS3D dPCR are highly consistent with droplet PCR for quantitative determination of
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.