Trial reportDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2022
Evaluation of independent self-collected blood specimens for COVID-19 antibody detection among the US veteran population.
Trial report in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-Sampling by Adolescents at Home: Assessment of the Feasibility to Successfully Collect Blood Microsamples by Inexperienced Individuals.The AAPS journal · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Feasibility and reliability of decentralized HIV-1 viral load monitoring on self-sampled blood.PloS one · 2026Article
- Patient centric blood sampling and analysis for diagnostics and laboratory medicine.Bioanalysis · 2025Review
- Evaluating blood sampling strategies within the SIREN study: the experience from a large cohort of healthcare workers in the UK.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Tasso+ blood self-collection device for quantitation of plasma cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNAemia in adult solid organ transplant recipients (SOTr).Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Comparison of capillary blood self-collection using the Tasso-SST device with venous phlebotomy for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement.Journal of immunological methods · 2023Article
- Painless Capillary Blood Collection: A Rapid Evaluation of the Onflow Device.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Highly Sensitive Immunoassay for Determination of Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Capillary Blood Samples.Biomedicines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feasibility of home blood sample collection methods for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from VA Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants was tested to determine COVID-19 infection or vaccination status. Participants (n = 312) were randomly assigned to self-collect blood specimens using the Neoteryx Mitra Clamshell (n = 136) or Tasso-SST (n = 176) and asked to rate their experience. Mitra tip blood was eluted and Tasso tubes were centrifuged. All samples were stored at -80 °C until tested with InBios SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA, BioRad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab Assay, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assays. Participants rated both devices equally. The Abbott assay had the highest sensitivity (87% Mitra, 98% Tasso-SST) for detecting known COVID infection and/or vaccination. The InBios assay with Tasso-SST had the best sensitivity (97%) and specificity (80%) for detecting known COVID-19 infection and/or vaccination. Veterans successfully collected their own specimens with no strong preference for either device.
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.