SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023
Droplet digital PCR vs. quantitative real time-PCR for diagnosis of pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Droplet Digital PCR Method for Simultaneous Detection and Quantification ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Diagnosis and Infection Risk Factor Analysis in AECOPD Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- An ultrasensitive method for early detection of tuberculosis in asymptomatic high-risk individuals.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- A High Sensitive Detection of Droplet Digital PCR for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Impact of Multiplex PCR on Diagnosis of Bacterial and Fungal Infections and Choice of Appropriate Antimicrobial Therapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Intensive reprocessing of reusable bronchoscopes can reduce the false positive rate of Xpert MTB/RIF caused by nucleic acid residue.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2024Article
- Post-Transcriptional Induction of the Antiviral Host Factor GILT/IFI30 by Interferon Gamma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Present and Future Applications of Digital PCR in Infectious Diseases Diagnosis.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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tuberculosis is a rising global public health emergency. Then, it is a priority to undertake innovations in preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods. Improved diagnostic methods for tuberculosis are urgently needed to address this global epidemic. These methods should be rapid, accurate, affordable, and able to detect drug-resistant tuberculosis. The benefits of these new diagnostic technics include earlier diagnosis and treatment, improved patient outcomes, and reduced economic burden. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the diagnostic performance of droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)-a third-generation PCR-compared with quantitative Real Time-PCR (qPCR) for diagnosing pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We included 14 diagnostic accuracy test studies performed in Asia, Europe, and Latin America, 1,672 participants or biological samples, and 975 events (pulmonary or extrapulmonary tuberculosis). Most of the included studies had a low risk of bias (QUADAS-C tool). Sensitivity and specificity were lower for ddPCR [0.56 (95% CI 0.53-0.58) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98), respectively] than for qPCR [0.66 (95% CI 0.60-0.71) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), respectively]. However, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was higher for ddPCR than for qPCR (0.97 and 0.94, respectively). Comparing both AUCs using the Hanley & McNeil method, we found statistically significant differences (AUC difference of 4.40%, Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022382768, CRD42022382768.
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.