ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2024
Clinical evaluation of a multiplex droplet digital PCR for diagnosing suspected bloodstream infections: a prospective study.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic advantage of droplet digital PCR over blood culture in sepsis: a retrospective study of 115 patients.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Clinical and Epidemiologic Characteristics of Anaerobic Bacteria Originating from Blood Cultures: A Five-Year Retrospective Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Incremental diagnostic value of bloodstream pathogen ddPCR for early identification of blood culture-positive bloodstream infection.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- The value of pathogen DNA load in evaluating the efficacy of bloodstream infection: a prospective observational study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Observational
- DNA-directed electrochemiluminescence nanosphere with electrocatalysis-enhanced microfluidic arrays for rapid multibacterial detection.Science advances · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis between digital PCR and blood culture for blood pathogen detection.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Though droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) has emerged as a promising tool for early pathogen detection in bloodstream infections (BSIs), more studies are needed to support its clinical application widely due to different ddPCR platforms with discrepant diagnostic performance. Additionally, there is still a lack of clinical data to reveal the association between pathogen loads detected by ddPCR and corresponding BSIs. Methods: In this prospective study, 173 patients with suspected BSIs were enrolled. A multiplex ddPCR assay was used to detect 18 pathogens. The results of ddPCR testing were evaluated in comparison with blood cultures (BCs) and clinical diagnosis. Taking BC as the gold standard, receiver operating characteristic curve and Cohen's kappa agreement were used to investigate whether the pathogen load could predict a corresponding culture-proven BSI for the top five microorganisms detected by ddPCR. Results: Of the 173 blood samples collected, BC and ddPCR were positive in 48 (27.7%) and 92 (53.2%) cases, respectively. Compared to BC, the aggregate sensitivity and specificity for ddPCR were 81.3% and 63.2%, respectively. After clinical adjudication, the sensitivity and specificity of ddPCR increased to 88.8% and 86.0%, respectively. There were 143 microorganisms detected by ddPCR. The DNA loads of these microorganisms ranged from 30.0 to 3.2×10 Conclusion: Our results indicate that the multiplex ddPCR is a promising platform as a complementary add-on to conventional BC. The DNA loads of
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.