Trial reportPloS one2024
Feasibility, acceptability, and safety of a novel device for self-collecting capillary blood samples in clinical trials in the context of the pandemic and beyond.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- From Home to Transcriptome: Comparing the Transcriptomic Profile of Induced Immune Response via Lipopolysaccharide Stimulation in homeRNA and Venous Blood.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Nano-Enabled Microfluidic Platforms for Functional Immunomonitoring in Pediatric Sepsis.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Integrating blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in asthma diagnostic pathways for adults and children: the PROPULSION SANTÉ observational study with translational sub-studies (DIVE, DIVE2)-protocols.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Patient centric blood sampling and analysis for diagnostics and laboratory medicine.Bioanalysis · 2025Review
- From Home to Transcriptome: Comparing the transcriptomic profile of induced immune response via lipopolysaccharide stimulation in homeRNA and venous blood.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Advances toward At-Home Measurements of Complete Blood Cell Counts and Other Hematological Parameters.Analytical chemistry · 2025Review
- Evaluation of a Simplified Upper Arm Device for Vacuum-Assisted Collection of Capillary Blood Specimens.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of NADAL COVID IgG/IgM rapid test and DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay across different blood sources and substrates.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Factors influencing biospecimen collection in decentralized pregnancy and birth cohorts: A qualitative study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Capillary Blood Self-Sampling for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: A Mixed-Methods Usability Study of the True DoseBioMed research international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHome blood self-collection devices can enable remote monitoring, but their implementation requires validation. Our objectives were to explore (i) the impact of sampling sites and topical analgesia on capillary blood volume and pain perception and (ii) the safety, acceptability, and failure of capillary self-collection among adults and children using the Tasso-SST device.
methodsWe conducted a two-phase study. The investigational phase consisted of two on-site cross-sectional studies in healthy adult participants (≥ 12 years) and children (1-17 years) with their accompanying parent. Adults received 4 capillary samplings, where puncture sites and topical analgesia were randomized in a factorial design, and a venipuncture; children (and one parent) had one capillary sampling. The two co-primary outcomes were blood volume and pain. The implementation phase was conducted in two multicentre trials in participants choosing remote visits; blood volume, collection failure, adverse events, and satisfaction were documented.
resultsIn the investigational phase, 90 participants and 9 children with 7 parents were enrolled; 15 adults and 2 preschoolers participated in the implementation phase. In the adult investigational study, the device collected a median (25%, 75%) of 450 (250, 550) μl of blood with no significant difference between the puncture site, topical analgesia, and its interaction. Using topical analgesia reduced pain perception by 0.61 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.24; P <0.01) points on the 11-point scale; the pain reduction varied by puncture site, with the lower back showing the most significant decrease. Overall, combining all studies and phases, the median volume collected was 425 (250, 500) μl, and the device failure rate was 4.4%; minor adverse effects were reported in 8.9% of the participants, all were willing to use the device again.
conclusionCapillary blood self-collection, yielding slightly less than 500 μl, proves to be a safe and relatively painless method for adults and children, with high satisfaction and low failure rates. The puncture site and topical analgesia do not affect blood volume, but topical analgesia on the lower back could reduce pain.
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.