ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2026
Diagnostic advantage of droplet digital PCR over blood culture in sepsis: a retrospective study of 115 patients.
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.
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.
- Fast Microbiology: A Pilot Study Comparing Culture-Independent Digital PCR and Blood Culture for Pathogen Detection in Sepsis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Metagenomic Next‑generation Sequencing versus Conventional Microbiological Tests in Immunocompromised and Immunocompetent Patients with Pulmonary Infection.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
14 authors.
Funding
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
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.