ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Comparative analysis between digital PCR and blood culture for blood pathogen detection.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rapid Detection of Pathogens and Resistance Genes in Positive Blood Cultures Using BioFirePolish journal of microbiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rapid and accurate identification of pathogens causing blood infections plays a pivotal role in the early diagnosis and management of infections. Digital PCR (dPCR) is a new nucleic acid amplification technology exhibiting high sensitivity for the rapid detection and absolute quantification of multiple pathogens in the blood. Methods: Herein, we conducted a retrospective study involving 149 patients with suspected infections and compared the differences between dPCR assay and blood culture in pathogen detection. Results: Blood culture showed six positive specimens and six pathogenic strains, whereas dPCR assay showed 42 positive specimens and 63 pathogenic strains. The concentrations of positive pathogens detected via dPCR varied from 25.5 to 439,900 copies/mL. Discussion: Our study demonstrated that dPCR assay has higher sensitivity, shorter detection time, and wider detection range than blood culture in blood pathogen detection, indicating its capability to support anti-infective therapy for patients.
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.