ArticleGenes2024
TERTmonitor Efficacy and Performance in Detecting Mutations by Droplet Digital PCR.
Article in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance and Clinical Utility of the UromonitorDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Heteroresistance inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe screening of TERT promoter (
objectiveThis study aims to investigate TERTmonitor performance in droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in urine samples from bladder cancer patients.
methodsA total of 45 urine samples were examined by real-time qPCR and ddPCR techniques, and their performances were compared.
resultsTERTmonitor had similar performance in both real-time qPCR and ddPCR platforms. Specifically, the methods exhibited a concordance rate of 95.45% and 90% for -124C>T and -146C>T mutations, respectively. Importantly, an enhanced sensitivity in certain scenarios was exhibited by ddPCR when compared to real-time qPCR, detecting mutations that the latter failed to identify in approximately 4.55% and 10% of the samples for -124C>T and -146C>T mutations, respectively. This enhanced sensitivity of ddPCR was particularly evident in samples with low-frequency mutations.
conclusionsThe findings highlight the usefulness of TERTmonitor for cancer surveillance either in real-time qPCR or ddPCR platforms.
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.