ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021
Comparative Analysis of Capillary vs Venous Blood for Serologic Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies by RPOC Lateral Flow Tests.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Indicators of recent COVID-19 infection status: findings from a large occupational cohort of staff and postgraduate research students from a UK university.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Rapid Quantitative Point-Of-Care Diagnostic Test for Post COVID-19 Vaccination Antibody Monitoring.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Antibody Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests Show High Cross-Reactivity When Challenged with Pre-Pandemic Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Dengue Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A comparison of rapid point-of-care serology tests using finger prick and venous blood was done on 278 participants. In a laboratory setting, immunoglobulin G (IgG) sensitivity neared 100%; however, IgG sensitivity dramatically dropped (82%) in field testing. Possible factors include finger prick volume variability, hemolysis, cassette readability, and operator training.
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.