ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2025
Performance of ddPCR-GNB for microbial diagnosis of suspected bloodstream infection due to the four most common gram-negative bacteria: a prospective, multicenter study.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fast Microbiology: A Pilot Study Comparing Culture-Independent Digital PCR and Blood Culture for Pathogen Detection in Sepsis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Challenges in early detection and prognostication of sepsis: new approaches from the emergency department and intensive care unit.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of the VITEK REVEAL AST and Accelerate Pheno systems for fast antimicrobial susceptibility testing of gram-negative blood cultures at a large academic health system.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of microbial culture, metagenomic next-generation sequencing and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction methods for pathogen detection in patients with neurosurgical central nervous system infection.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to validate the performance of ddPCR-GNB, a plasma droplet digital PCR panel targeting the four most common gram-negative bacteria, for patients with suspected bloodstream infection (BSI). Patients suspected of having BSIs were prospectively enrolled. The results of blood culture and ddPCR-GNB were compared, and cases with discordant results were arbitrated on the basis of additional microbiological results and clinical evidence. A total of 1,041 patients were enrolled. Blood culture and ddPCR-GNB results were positive for targeted bacteria in 6.3% and 31.7% of patients, respectively. The overall per-patient sensitivity and specificity of ddPCR-GNB for proven BSIs were 98.5% (95% CI, 91.9% to 99.9%) and 72.8% (95% CI, 69.9% to 75.5%), respectively; the negative predictive value was 99.9% (95% CI, 99.2% to 100%). The discordant results included 265 cases (25.5%) with negative companion blood culture results but positive ddPCR-GNB results and one case vice versa. A total of 23.7% of the cases were attributed to probable ( IMPORTANCE: This is the first multicentral study to validate the clinical performance of ddPCR in etiological diagnosis of bloodstream infection. The results showed that ddPCR has high sensitivity and increased detection rate compared with blood culture. The study proved the potential of the ddPCR method in microbial diagnoses.
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.