ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Evaluating the sensitivity of droplet digital PCR for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches to SARS-CoV-2 Wastewater Surveillance.Viruses · 2026Pooled it
- Development and validation of a crystal digital PCR assay for duck Tembusu virus detection and vaccine monitoring.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Subgenomic RNA and Limited Cross-Reactive Neutralising Antibodies Point to Potential Improvements in SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Handling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Viruses in Wastewater-A Concern for Public Health and the Environment.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.