ArticleScientific reports2025
Accuracy of capillary blood sampling for diagnosing syphilis infection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Capillary blood collection presents advantages such as reduced invasiveness over venous serum for syphilis diagnosing. This study aimed to compare diagnostic accuracy between capillary and venous blood samples for syphilis diagnosis. Individuals aged ≥ 18 years were included in a cross-sectional study. Syphilis screening was done using Rapid tests (RT) followed by collection of serum capillary and venous samples for VDRL and TPHA test. Sensitivity, specificity, and Kappa coefficient were calculated. Of 191 participants, 115 RT + and 76 RT-. Diagnostic properties did not significantly differ between capillary and venous samples. Capillary VDRL showed 99% sensitivity and 100% specificity, mirroring TPHA results. Furthermore, there was significant agreement between sample types for both serological tests (p < 0.001). Capillary sampling offers comparable diagnostic accuracy to venous collection, regardless of serum quality. Capillary sampling holds promise, particularly in developing countries and large-scale testing initiatives.
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.