ArticleRMD open2024
Patient-perspective and feasibility of home finger-prick testing to complement and facilitate large-scale research in rheumatology.
Article in RMD open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a digital research platform to longitudinally investigate COVID-19-related outcomes in patients with rheumatic diseases and healthy controls. We used home finger-prick testing in order to collect serum samples remotely and increase the overall efficiency of the platform. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the success rate of the finger prick and patients' perspective towards the finger prick.
methodsSerum samples were collected up to five times during follow-up, either via a venepuncture at the research institute or a finger prick from participants' home. Participants were asked to complete a digital evaluation questionnaire of the finger prick after their attempts.
resultsA total of 2135 patients and 899 controls performed at least one finger prick and were included in this study. The first finger prick was successfully done by 92% (95% CI: 90% to 93%) of patients, 94% (95% CI: 92% to 95%) of controls, 93% (95% CI: 92% to 94%) of all participants aged ≤70 years and 89% (95% CI: 86% to 92%) of all participants aged >70 years. Sex did not impact these success rates. Repeated failure occurred in 11/439 (0.8%) patients and 4/712 (0.6%) controls. Both patients and controls were less willing to perform a finger prick for individual healthcare compared with scientific research.
conclusionThe vast majority of participants, among which elderly and patients with rheumatic diseases, were able to successfully draw the required amount of blood for serological analyses. This shows that finger-prick testing is suitable for a high-throughput implementation to monitor patients remotely.
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.