ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Evaluation of a new droplet digital PCR for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and tuberculous pleurisy.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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.
- A High Sensitive Detection of Droplet Digital PCR for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis.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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) offers high sensitivity and absolute quantification without standard curves, making it promising for tuberculosis (TB) detection in paucibacillary samples. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a ddPCR assay targeting IS6110 and 23S rRNA for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and tuberculous pleurisy (TP). Methods: A total of 436 patients (245 suspected PTB, 191 suspected TP) were prospectively enrolled. ddPCR was performed on sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and pleural effusion samples. Diagnostic performance was compared with Xpert MTB/RIF and culture. Results: In suspected PTB, ddPCR showed significantly higher sensitivity than Xpert (49.70% vs. 38.10%, Discussion: ddPCR offers improved sensitivity for PTB and TP diagnosis, particularly in paucibacillary cases, though its lower specificity necessitates confirmatory testing. The dual-target design enables simultaneous MTB/NTM differentiation, providing clinical utility for guiding appropriate therapy.
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.