ArticleTranslational cancer research2026
Multiplex droplet digital polymerase chain reaction for rapid diagnosing suspected bloodstream infections in patients with hematologic malignancies.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with acute leukemia are at increased risk of microbial infections due to factors such as the disease itself, intensive chemotherapy, and transplantation. Untimely or inadequate treatment can prolong therapy, raise costs, and even threaten patient survival, impacting overall cancer treatment outcomes. Traditional microbial identification relies on blood cultures (BCs), but their low positivity rate and lengthy processing time often hinder prompt diagnosis and the identification of the infecting pathogens. This study aimed to use droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR), known for its sensitivity in single-molecule amplification, to detect pathogen DNA and drug-resistant genes in blood. Methods: We included a total of 47 patients with hematologic malignancies who were over 18 years old and had neutropenia accompanied by fever [suspected bloodstream infection (BSI)] from August 2022 to November 2022. Patients who failed resuscitation after severe shock, with severe liver or kidney dysfunction, and in the terminal stage were excluded. We conducted ddPCR testing for bacteria/fungi/viruses with the patient's blood on the first day, third day, and fifth day of the occurrences of neutropenic fever with suspected BSI. In case of positive results indicating the presence of bacteria, we used the remaining nucleic acid samples to detect drug resistance genes. Results: BC and ddPCR yielded positive results indicating the presence of bacteria in five patients (10.64%) and 14 patients (29.79%), respectively, with ddPCR demonstrating acceptable positive rate (81.44%). Regarding the breadth of detection, ddPCR identified 10 different pathogens, while only two pathogens went undetected. In contrast, BC detected only five different pathogens. In terms of the diversity of pathogens detected in single samples, among the 14 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive patients, three had the presence of two different pathogens synchronously. Furthermore, ddPCR also revealed the presence of drug resistance genes. Among the 14 PCR-positive patients, four were found to have drug resistance genes, including one case of Conclusions: ddPCR is a versatile and adaptable platform that can serve as a complement to traditional BCs.
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.