Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2021
Use of Iris Scanning for Biometric Recognition of Healthy Adults Participating in an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Mixed Methods Study.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04186000 (Open-label Phase 2 Study to Evaluate the Immunogenicity and Safety of a Prophylactic Vaccination of Health Care Providers by Administration of a Heterologous Vaccine Regimen Against Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), which is not on this 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.
Open-label Phase 2 Study to Evaluate the Immunogenicity and Safety of a Prophylactic Vaccination of Health Care Providers by Administration of a Heterologous Vaccine Regimen Against Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Access to licenced vaccines for high-threat infectious diseases: a scoping review and interpretive analysis of Ebola virus disease.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Long-Term Experiences of Health Care Providers Using Iris Scanning as an Identification Tool in a Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Digital health technology in clinical trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA partnership between the University of Antwerp and the University of Kinshasa implemented the EBOVAC3 clinical trial with an Ebola vaccine regimen administered to health care provider participants in Tshuapa Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. This randomized controlled trial was part of an Ebola outbreak preparedness initiative financed through Innovative Medicines Initiative-European Union. The EBOVAC3 clinical trial used iris scan technology to identify all health care provider participants enrolled in the vaccine trial, to ensure that the right participant received the right vaccine at the right visit.
objectiveWe aimed to assess the acceptability, accuracy, and feasibility of iris scan technology as an identification method within a population of health care provider participants in a vaccine trial in a remote setting.
methodsWe used a mixed methods study. The acceptability was assessed prior to the trial through 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) and was assessed at enrollment. Feasibility and accuracy research was conducted using a longitudinal trial study design, where iris scanning was compared with the unique study ID card to identify health care provider participants at enrollment and at their follow-up visits.
resultsDuring the FGDs, health care provider participants were mainly concerned about the iris scan technology causing physical problems to their eyes or exposing them to spiritual problems through sorcery. However, 99% (85/86; 95% CI 97.1-100.0) of health care provider participants in the FGDs agreed to be identified by the iris scan. Also, at enrollment, 99.0% (692/699; 95% CI 98.2-99.7) of health care provider participants accepted to be identified by iris scan. Iris scan technology correctly identified 93.1% (636/683; 95% CI 91.2-95.0) of the participants returning for scheduled follow-up visits. The iris scanning operation lasted 2 minutes or less for 96.0% (656/683; 95% CI 94.6-97.5), and 1 attempt was enough to identify the majority of study participants (475/683, 69.5%; 95% CI 66.1-73.0).
conclusionsIris scans are highly acceptable as an identification tool in a clinical trial for health care provider participants in a remote setting. Its operationalization during the trial demonstrated a high level of accuracy that can reliably identify individuals. Iris scanning is found to be feasible in clinical trials but requires a trained operator to reduce the duration and the number of attempts to identify a participant.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04186000; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04186000.
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.