Cited by 864Molecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The Digital MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Digital PCR Experiments

Open access
Huggett, Jim F, Foy, Carole A, Benes, Vladimir, Emslie, Kerry, Garson, Jeremy A, Haynes, Ross, Hellemans, Jan, Kubista, Mikael +7 more·2013·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

There is growing interest in digital PCR (dPCR) because technological progress makes it a practical and increasingly affordable technology. dPCR allows the precise quantification of nucleic acids, facilitating the measurement of small percentage differences and quantification of rare variants. dPCR may also be more reproducible and less susceptible to inhibition than quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Consequently, dPCR has the potential to have a substantial impact on research as well as diagnostic applications. However, as with qPCR, the ability to perform robust meaningful experiments requires careful design and adequate controls. To assist independent evaluation of experimental data, comprehensive disclosure of all relevant experimental details is required. To facilitate this process we present the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Digital PCR Experiments guidelines. This report addresses known requirements for dPCR that have already been identified during this early stage of its development and commercial implementation. Adoption of these guidelines by the scientific community will help to standardize experimental protocols, maximize efficient utilization of resources, and enhance the impact of this promising new technology.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2013.206375

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Guidelines for digital MIQE have been proposed.

    “As a first step toward this, guidelines for digital MIQE have been proposed (16).”

    From Analysis of Extracellular RNA by Digital PCR (2014) · cites this paper as [16]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Digital PCR. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:9236 -41.
  2. Sundberg SO, Wittwer CT, Gao C, Gale BK. Spin- ning disk platform for microfluidic digital poly- merase chain reaction. Anal Chem 2010;82: 1546 -50.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huggett, J. F., Foy, C. A., Benes, V., Emslie, K., Garson, J. A., Haynes, R., Hellemans, J., Kubista, M., Mueller, R. D., Nolan, T., Pfaffl, M. W., Shipley, G. L., Vandesompele, J., Wittwer, C. T., & Bustin, S. A.
Affiliations
  • LGC (GB)
  • Genomics Core Facility, EMBL Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • National Measurement Institute (AU)
  • University College London (GB)
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
  • Ghent University Hospital (BE)
  • Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biotechnology (CZ)
  • Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, San Diego, CA
  • Sigma Custom Products, Haverhill, Suffolk, UK
  • Physiology Weihenstephan, Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan, Germany
  • Shipley Consulting, LLC, Houston, TX
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Anglia Ruskin University (GB)
Corresponding author
Huggett, Jim F
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2013-06-01
Volume
59
Issue
6
Pages
892-902
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2099066165
Cited by
859
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 1
FWCI
28.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Anglia Ruskin Research Online (Anglia Ruskin University) (submittedVersion)
  • ASEP (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • UK National Measurement System (AV0Z50520701, GACR GA P303/10/1338)
  • BioFire Diagnostics
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
digital PCR, MIQE guidelines, reporting guidelines, experimental reproducibility, nucleic acid quantification, experimental design, control, standardization of protocols
MeSH terms
Computers, Guidelines as Topic, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

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