Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38425410›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Evaluating the sensitivity of droplet digital PCR for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.

Magali de la Cruz Barron, David Kneis, Michael Geissler, Roger Dumke, Alexander Dalpke, Thomas U Berendonk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Magali de la Cruz BarronInstitute of Hydrobiology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
David KneisInstitute of Hydrobiology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Michael GeisslerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Virology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Roger DumkeInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Virology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Alexander DalpkeInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Virology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Thomas U BerendonkInstitute of Hydrobiology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
TU Dresden · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 has been demonstrated to be a valuable tool in monitoring community-level virus circulation and assessing new outbreaks. It may become a useful tool in the early detection and response to future pandemics, enabling public health authorities to implement timely interventions and mitigate the spread of infectious diseases with the fecal excretion of their agents. It also offers a chance for cost-effective surveillance. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RTqPCR) is the most commonly used method for viral RNA detection in wastewater due to its sensitivity, reliability, and widespread availability. However, recent studies have indicated that reverse transcription droplet digital PCR (RTddPCR) has the potential to offer improved sensitivity and accuracy for quantifying SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater samples. In this study, we compared the performance of RTqPCR and RTddPCR approaches for SARS-CoV-2 detection and quantification on wastewater samples collected during the third epidemic wave in Saxony, Germany, characterized by low-incidence infection periods. The determined limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) were within the same order of magnitude, and no significant differences were observed between the PCR approaches with respect to the number of positive or quantifiable samples. Our results indicate that both RTqPCR and RTddPCR are highly sensitive methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Consequently, the actual gain in sensitivity associated with ddPCR lags behind theoretical expectations. Hence, the choice between the two PCR methods in further environmental surveillance programs is rather a matter of available resources and throughput requirements.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsPolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2WastewaterWastewater-Based Epidemiological MonitoringRNA, ViralWastewaterdroplet-digital PCRRTqPCRSARS-CoV-2sensitivitywastewater surveillance

Identifiers

PMID38425410
PMCPMC10903512
OpenAlexW4390274612

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.