ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2025
Comparison between point-of-care testing from capillary samples and conventional laboratory testing from venous samples for white blood cells and C-reactive protein in a pediatric outpatient setting.
Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comparison between point-of-care testing from capillary samples and conventional laboratory testing from venous samples for white blood cells and C-reactive protein in a pediatric outpatient setting.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
- Protocol for a naturalistic study of residents living in an agriculturally-integrated ("agrihood") neighborhood.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Studies on the accuracy of point-of-care (POC) testing using capillary samples are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the analytical accuracy of POC testing for white blood cell (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) using capillary samples compared with conventional central laboratory testing using venous samples in a pediatric ambulatory care setting. Methods: This was a retrospective study including patients younger than 18 years who underwent concurrent WBC and CRP evaluations via capillary and subsequent venous sampling within a 2-h window. Capillary and venous blood samples were collected using finger prick and standard venipuncture techniques, respectively. Capillary blood analysis was performed using a Microsemi CRP device. Venous samples were measured in the hospital's central laboratory. The agreement between the capillary POC and venous laboratory results was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. Results: A total of 277 pediatric patients were included in this study. The median age of the participants was 1 year (interquartile range: 0-2 years). The mean difference between the capillary and venous measurements for WBC was -18 × 100/μL with 95% limits of agreement of -73 × 100/μL to 37 × 100/μL. The mean difference between the capillary and venous measurements for CRP was -0.25 mg/dL with 95% limits of agreement of -2.1 mg/dL to 1.6 mg/dL. Conclusions: POC CRP testing via capillary sampling by finger prick demonstrated sufficient accuracy. POC CRP testing has the potential to be a valuable instrument for clinical decision making, particularly in screening febrile outpatient children.
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.