Primary Quantitative Reference Standards for Viral Nucleic Acids Should Be Developed Using Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction Instead of Consensus Testing.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Droplet digital PCR-based nucleic acid amplification test for improved molecular and clinical diagnosis of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026
   Article
2. Predicting Polymerase Chain Reaction Success: Integrating theCombinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2026
   Article
3. Development of a novel pseudovirus-based quality control material for HIV-1 nucleic acid testing and its application in external quality assessment.Microbiology spectrum · 2025
   Article
4. Accuracy of quantitative viral secondary standards: a re-examination.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as