ArticlePloS one2023
Feasibility of self-organized blood sample collection in adults for study purposes in a primary care setting.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation and User Satisfaction of a Comprehensive Telemedicine Approach for SARS-CoV-2 Self-Sampling: Monocentric, Prospective, Interventional, Open-Label, Controlled, Two-Arm Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Trial
- Multimodal Online Recruitment and Engagement of Black Breast Cancer Survivors for Mixed Methods Social Determinants of Health Research: Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Unexpected scarring following use of capillary self-blood collection device: A case report and discussion of device design.The journal of vascular access · 2026Article
- Pain and feasibility of capillary self-blood collection in general practice: A cross-sectional investigative study.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Comparing Venous vs. Capillary Blood Collection Methods for Proteomic Measurement in Peripheral Blood.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2025Article
- Capillary Blood Self-Sampling for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: A Mixed-Methods Usability Study of the True DoseBioMed research international · 2025Article
- Using Gagne's instructional design to teach communication skills in phlebotomy education through role-play.F1000Research · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe COVID-19 pandemic situation poses new challenges for research. Ethical issues might arise if especially vulnerable individuals for severe COVID-19 course expose themselves because of participation in studies to a higher risk of infection for study purposes. How is the feasibility and acceptance of self-organized blood sample collections to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG antibodies in persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression?
methodsPersons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression (immunocompromised, oncology patients or over 80 years old) were recruited between January and September 2021 to send in blood samples (at least 500 μl) 1 month and 6 months after second COVID-19 vaccination. Participants were given the choice of drawing capillary or venous blood themselves or having blood drawn by health professionals belonging to either the study's own research team or the personnel found in local practices or clinics. Participants were surveyed via a telephone interview in December 2021 and January 2022 about their choice of blood sampling methods and influence of blood collection choice upon study participation.
resultsData from 360 participants was collected via telephone follow-up. First blood samples were collected by the participants themselves (35.8%), local practices or clinics (31.9%) and the research team (22.5%). Second blood samples were mostly collected in local practices or clinics (35.6%) followed by participants themselves (25.9%) and the research team (11.5%). Blood samples were not collected in 2.5% and 19.1% of persons during first and second blood draw, respectively. Only 2% of blood samples did not reach the laboratory or were not analyzable. About one-fourth (26%) of participants stated that they would not have participated in the study if it would have been required to travel to the university hospital to give their blood sample.
conclusionsParticipants were able to self-organize blood collection, making use of several different blood sample methods. Nearly all blood samples were analyzable when self-collected and sent in by post. One-fourth of the participants would not have participated in the study if required to give their blood sample in the study location.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Registry, DRKS00021152.
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.