ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2025
Optimizing Clinical Indicators in Hematologic Malignancies and Sepsis Using ddPCR: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. 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 antibiotic impact of droplet digital PCR in suspected sepsis: the PROGRESS trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Combating Antimicrobial Resistance: A Pharmacist-Led PDCA Stewardship Program in a Tertiary Hospital.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEarly antibacterial treatment is critical for patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) and sepsis. Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) can rapidly detect pathogens and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes, but its clinical value in HMs is unknown. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the role of ddPCR in diagnosis, clinical outcomes, and antimicrobial stewardship.
methodsFrom January 2023 to March 2025, 400 patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) and sepsis were enrolled in the study. Of these, 150 received both ddPCR and blood culture (BC), while 250 underwent BC alone. Using propensity score matching (PSM), as well as subgroup and sensitivity analyses, we evaluated ten indicators, including 28-day mortality, treatment efficacy, and antibiotic use density (AUD).
resultsddPCR showed a 49.33% positive rate (vs. BC's 17.50%, P < 0.01) with a 4.06-h diagnostic turnaround (vs. 72.47 h for BC, P < 0.01), achieving 70.37% sensitivity and 55.28% specificity. The ddPCR group had lower 28-day mortality (HR = 0.55, P = 0.01), higher clinical response rates, and greater inflammatory marker decline. Antimicrobial optimization via ddPCR improved efficacy to 85.11%, with reduced AUD (OR = - 28.93, P < 0.01), the quantity and proportion of combined antimicrobial usage. However, a non-significant difference was observed in the proportion of antibacterial treatment costs (P = 0.14). PSM and sensitivity analysis results were consistent, indicating data robustness.
conclusionsddPCR outperforms BC in diagnostic efficiency for patients with HMs and sepsis, accelerating pathogen and AMR genes identification, optimizing antibacterial therapy and management, improving clinical effectiveness, and reducing 28-day all-cause mortality. The findings support the application of ddPCR in immunosuppressed populations.
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.