Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39757158›Full record

Observational studyBMC infectious diseases2025

Clinical diagnostic performance of droplet digital PCR for pathogen detection in patients with Escherichia coli bloodstream infection: a prospective observational study.

Hiroki Kitagawa, Masato Kojima, Kayoko Tadera, Shuta Kogasaki, Keitaro Omori, Toshihito Nomura, Norifumi Shigemoto, Eiso Hiyama, Hiroki Ohge

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. A review of bloodstream infections-pathogens, pathogenesis, diagnostic strategies, treatment methods-challenges and future aspects.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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

9 authors.

Hiroki KitagawaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Hiroshima University Hospital, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. hkitaga@hiroshima-u.ac.jp.
Masato KojimaDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan.
Kayoko TaderaSection of Clinical Laboratory, Division of Clinical Support, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan.
Shuta KogasakiSchool of Medicine, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan.
Keitaro OmoriDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Hiroshima University Hospital, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan.
Toshihito NomuraDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Hiroshima University Hospital, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan.
Norifumi ShigemotoDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Hiroshima University Hospital, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan.
Eiso HiyamaDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan.
Hiroki OhgeDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Hiroshima University Hospital, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan.

Funding

Kurozumi Medical Foundation NoneMorinomiyako Medical Research Foundation NoneThe 1st "Creating a Resilient Japan Against Infectious Diseases Project" Research Grant NoneTsuchiya Memorial Medical Foundation None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDroplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a highly sensitive tool for detecting bacterial DNA in bacterial bloodstream infections (BSI). This study aimed to examine the sensitivity and specificity of ddPCR and the association between bacterial DNA load in whole blood and the time-to-positivity (TTP) of blood culture (BC) in patients with Escherichia coli BSI.

methodsThis prospective study enrolled patients with E. coli BSI confirmed via BC at the Hiroshima University Hospital from June 2023 to August 2024. The E. coli DNA load in whole blood, which was simultaneously obtained from two BC sets, was measured using ddPCR with E. coli specific primer and probe. Whole blood samples from 50 patients with BC positive for pathogens other than E. coli (n = 25) and BC negative (n = 25) were also evaluated using ddPCR.

resultsA total of 131 patient samples were analyzed in this study. Of the 81 patients with E. coli BSI, ddPCR detected E. coli DNA in 67 (82.7%). The results of ddPCR for E. coli had a sensitivity of 82.7% (95% CI: 73.1-89.4%), specificity 100% (95% CI: 93.0-100%). Patients with positive ddPCR results had significantly shorter TTP than those with negative results (median, 8.8 h vs. 10.7 h, p < 0.001). The positivity rate for both BC sets was significantly higher in patients with positive ddPCR results than in those with negative results (89.6% vs. 35.1%, p < 0.001). Among ddPCR-positive patients, septic shock was significantly associated with intestinal perforation, higher E. coli DNA load, higher 28-d mortality, shorter TTP, and higher positivity rate for four bottles of BC than those without septic shock. The E. coli DNA load in whole blood negatively correlated with TTP (p < 0.001, R

conclusionThe E. coli DNA load in whole blood is inversely correlated with TTP. Notably, a higher E. coli DNA load is associated with septic shock.

Indexed as

BacteremiaDNA, BacterialEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood CultureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesDNA, BacterialBlood cultureBloodstream infectionDroplet digital PCRMortalitySepsisTime-to-positivity

Identifiers

PMID39757158
PMCPMC11702014

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.