ArticleHeliyon2024
Enhanced detection of African swine fever virus in samples with low viral load using digital PCR technology.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovations, Applications, and Future Trends in Veterinary Diagnostic Technologies.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Review
- Analyzing qPCR data: Better practices to facilitate rigor and reproducibility.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Article
- The Complexities of African Swine Fever Diagnosis and Control in the Developing World: A Narrative Review Focused on Ghana.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Digital PCR in Virology: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
- Comparison of digital PCR and real time PCR methods for quantitative analysis of African Swine Fever Virus.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of low viral load samples has long been a challenge for African swine fever (ASF) prevention and control. This study aimed to compare the detection efficacy of droplet digital PCR(ddPCR) and quantitative PCR(qPCR) for African swine fever virus (ASFV) at different viral loads, with a focus on assessing the accuracy of ddPCR in detecting low viral load samples. The results revealed that ddPCR had a detection limit of 1.97 (95% CI 1.48 - 4.12) copies/reaction and was 18.99 times more sensitive than qPCR (detection limit: 37.42, 95% CI 29.56 - 69.87 copies/reaction). In the quantification of high, medium, and low viral load samples, ddPCR showed superior stability with lower intra- (2.06% - 7.58%) and inter-assay (3.83% - 7.50%) coefficients of variation than those of qPCR (intra-assay: 8.08%-29.86%; inter-assay: 9.27%-34.58%). Bland-Altman analysis indicated acceptable consistency between ddPCR and qPCR for high and medium viral load samples; however, discrepancies were observed for low viral load samples, where two samples (2/24, 8.33%) exhibited deviations beyond the acceptable range (-46.18 copies/reaction). Moreover, ddPCR demonstrated better performance in detecting ASFV in clinical samples from asymptomatic pigs and environmental samples, with qPCR showing false negative rates of 7.69% (2/26) and 27.27% (12/44), respectively. McNemar analysis revealed significant differences between the two methods (
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.