ArticlePloS one2021
Development of at-home sample collection logistics for large-scale seroprevalence studies.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fragment-Based Discovery of KLK6 and KLK7 Inhibitors.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- COVID-19 vaccine antibody responses in community-dwelling adults to 48 weeks post primary vaccine series.iScience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSerological studies rely on the recruitment of representative cohorts; however, such efforts are specially complicated by the conditions surrounding the COVID19 pandemic.
methodsWe aimed to design and implement a fully remote methodology for conducting safe serological surveys that also allow for the engagement of representative study populations.
resultsThis design was well-received and effective. 2,066 participants ≥18 years old were enrolled, reflecting the ethnic and racial composition of Massachusetts. >70% of them reported being satisfied/extremely satisfied with the online enrollment and at-home self-collection of blood samples. While 18.6% reported some discomfort experienced with the collection process, 72.2% stated that they would be willing to test weekly if enrolled in a long-term study.
conclusionsHigh engagement and positive feedback from participants, as well as the quality of self-collected specimens, point to the usefulness of this fully remote, self-collection-based study design for future safer and efficient population-level serological surveys.
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.