Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ddPCR: a more accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens

Open access
Suo, Tao, Liu, Xinjin, Feng, Jiangpeng, Guo, Ming, Hu, Wenjia, Guo, Dong, Ullah, Hafiz, Yang, Yang, Zhang, Qiuhan, Wang, Xin, Sajid, Muhanmmad, Huang, Zhixiang, Deng, Liping, Chen, Tielong, Liu, Fang, Xu, Ke, Liu, Yuan, Zhang, Qi, Liu, Yingle, Xiong, Yong, Chen, Guozhong, Lan, Ke, Chen, Yu·2020·Emerging Microbes & Infections

Abstract

Abstract Real time fluorescent quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, due to the low viral load in patient throats and the limitations of RT-PCR, significant numbers of false negative reports are inevitable, which results in failure to timely diagnose, early treat, cut off transmission, and assess discharge criteria. To improve this situation, an optimized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection of SARS-CoV-2, which showed that the limit of detection of ddPCR is significantly lower than that of RT-PCR. We further explored the feasibility of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid from 77 clinical throat swab samples, including 63 suspected outpatients with fever and 14 supposed convalescents who were about to discharge after treatment, and compared with RT-PCR in terms of the diagnostic accuracy. In this double-blind study, we tested, surveyed subsequently and statistically analyzed 77 clinical samples. According to our study, 26 samples from COVID-19 patients with RT-PCR negative were detected as positive by ddPCR. No FPRs of RT-PCR and ddPCR were observed. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, NLR and accuracy were improved from 40% (95% CI: 27–55%), 100% (95% CI: 54–100%), 100%, 16% (95% CI: 13–19%), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48–0.75) and 47% (95% CI: 33–60%) for RT-PCR to 94% (95% CI: 83–99%), 100% (95% CI: 48–100%), 100%, 63% (95% CI: 36–83%), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02–0.18) and 95% (95% CI: 84–99%) for ddPCR, respectively. Moreover, 14 (42.9 %) convalescents still carry detectable SARS-CoV-2 after discharge. Overall, ddPCR shows superiority for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the false negative reports, which could be a powerful complement to the current standard RT-PCR. It also suggests that the current clinical practice that the convalescent after discharge continues to be quarantined for at least 2 weeks is completely necessary which can prevent potential viral transmission.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/22221751.2020.1772678

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
Suo, T., Liu, X., Feng, J., Guo, M., Hu, W., Guo, D., Ullah, H., Yang, Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, X., Sajid, M., Huang, Z., Deng, L., Chen, T., Liu, F., Xu, K., Liu, Y., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., Xiong, Y., Chen, G., Lan, K., & Chen, Y.
Venue
Emerging Microbes & Infections
Published
2020-01
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
1259-1268
ISSN
2222-1751 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3027866910
Cited by
450
References
5
FWCI
10.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ddPCR: a more accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/22221751.2020.1772678
The paper
Suo, T., Liu, X., Feng, J., Guo, M., Hu, W., Guo, D., Ullah, H., Yang, Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, X., Sajid, M., Huang, Z., Deng, L., Chen, T., Liu, F., Xu, K., Liu, Y., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., . . . Chen, Y. (2020). ddPCR: a more accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens. Emerging Microbes & Infections. https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1772678

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.