Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41549293›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2026

Diagnostic advantage of droplet digital PCR over blood culture in sepsis: a retrospective study of 115 patients.

Xiaoqiong Yang, Zezhong Lv, Lan Zhang, Zhinian Wu, Jieyu Liu, Taotao Xie, Xiaoru Li, Chunlei Zhou, Ziqun Meng, Meng Wang and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

14 authors.

Xiaoqiong YangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Zezhong LvSchool of Control Science and Engineering, Tiangong University, Tianjin, China. zezhonglv0306@gmail.com.
Lan ZhangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Zhinian WuDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Jieyu LiuDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Taotao XieDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Xiaoru LiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Chunlei ZhouDepartment of Medical Laboratory, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Ziqun MengTianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Meng WangDepartment of Medical Laboratory, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Hanming LvSchool of Textile Science and Engineering, Tiangong University, Tianjin, China.
Xiaofeng ShiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Qianyi ZhouDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China. zhouqy316@163.com.
Wenjie YangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China. yangm8006@sina.com.

Funding

National Key Clinical Specialties Construction Program in Infectious Diseases Department 8235Tianjin First Central Hospital Intramural Fund 2025FYQN10Tianjin Health Research Project TJWJ2025ZK007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis is a life-threatening condition that requires rapid and accurate identification of causative pathogens to guide timely antimicrobial therapy. Blood culture is the current diagnostic standard, but it suffers from low sensitivity and long turnaround times. Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) has emerged as a promising molecular tool that may overcome these limitations. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of ddPCR compared with conventional blood culture in patients with sepsis.

methodsWe performed a retrospective study of 115 patients admitted with sepsis to Tianjin First Central Hospital between October 2024 and June 2025. All patients underwent both blood culture and ddPCR testing on admission. Clinical characteristics, laboratory parameters, and infection outcomes were collected. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was calculated using blood culture as the reference standard. Concordance between ddPCR, blood culture, and non-blood specimen cultures was analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and agreement measures.

resultsBlood culture identified pathogens in 27.8% of patients, whereas ddPCR detected organisms in 53%. ddPCR revealed a broader microbial spectrum, particularly Gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, and identified mixed infections frequently missed by culture. Within its detection panel, ddPCR demonstrated a sensitivity of 81.3% and specificity of 56.6%, with a high negative predictive value of 88.7%. ddPCR findings showed strong agreement with non-blood culture results in cases where blood cultures were negative, underscoring its clinical relevance. Early in the study, false-positive Candida results were observed but eliminated after stricter aseptic protocols were implemented.

conclusionsDroplet digital polymerase chain reaction significantly outperformed blood culture in pathogen detection for sepsis, especially for Gram-negative and polymicrobial infections. Its high negative predictive value supports its use as a complementary tool to exclude bloodstream infections and guide early antimicrobial de-escalation. While positive findings must be interpreted with clinical context to avoid overtreatment, ddPCR offers substantial potential to accelerate pathogen identification, improve antimicrobial stewardship, and enhance outcomes in septic patients.

Indexed as

Blood culture (BC)Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)Sepsis

Identifiers

PMID41549293
PMCPMC12903744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.