ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2026
Droplet Digital PCR and Quantitative RT-PCR Comparison for Circulating miR-371a-3p in Malignant Germ Cell Tumors.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous work has shown that circulating miR-371a-3p has higher sensitivity and specificity than current biomarkers for malignant germ cell tumors (MGCTs). Herein, the performance of two methods commonly used to measure miR-371a-3p levels was compared: quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). Samples from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (Dallas, TX) and the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, UK) were evaluated using both RT-qPCR and ddPCR, as per current protocols (RT-qPCR) or standard manufacturer's recommendations (ddPCR). Data were available for 70 individuals: 36 patients with MGCT and 34 control participants (nonmalignant GCT, non-GCT cancer, and noncancer). The performance of the two assays was compared using receiver operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve. Raw miR-371a-3p Cq values (RT-qPCR) were generally lower (ie, miR-371a-3p was more abundant) and the number of positive droplets (ddPCR) higher for patients with MGCT compared with control participants. The area under the curve (95% CI) was 0.94 (0.90-0.99) and 0.82 (0.70-0.93) when using RT-qPCR and ddPCR, respectively. Thus, RT-qPCR had better classification performance compared with ddPCR in the present cohort, supporting the continued use of RT-qPCR in standard clinical practice. Further investigation is required to optimize ddPCR before it should be considered for clinical adoption.
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.