ArticleProteomics. Clinical applications2025
Comparing Venous vs. Capillary Blood Collection Methods for Proteomic Measurement in Peripheral Blood.
Article in Proteomics. Clinical applications, 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.
- Does Capillary or Intravenous Collection of Dried Blood Spots Affect the Results of Amino Acid and Acylcarnitine Profile Studied with Tandem Mass Spectrometry?Metabolites · 2026Article
- From Home to Transcriptome: Comparing the Transcriptomic Profile of Induced Immune Response via Lipopolysaccharide Stimulation in homeRNA and Venous Blood.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCapillary blood collection has a number of advantages over venous collection, especially in the context of increasing decentralized clinical trials and field-based testing. No studies are available comparing venous versus capillary blood collection for proteomics measurement. The aim of this study was to compare venous versus capillary blood collection methods for proteomic measurement in peripheral blood.
methodsThe expression of 368 different proteins from the Olink Explore 384 Inflammation panel was measured in both venous and capillary blood samples collected from 22 individuals at a single time point. Protein levels from venous and capillary blood samples were compared with descriptive statistics and correlation calculations. Correlations were examined for a subset of proteins identified in recent reports as associated with morbidity and mortality.
resultsStrong positive correlation (r ≥ 0.7) between protein concentrations measured in venous and capillary blood samples was observed for two in three proteins tested (215 of 327, 66%). A further 47 (14%) showed a moderate positive correlation (0.4 ≤ r < 0.7), with weak or very weak correlation (r < 0.4) observed for the remaining 65 (20%). Protein expression was consistently higher in capillary blood samples for proteins with lower correlation (r < 0.6) between sampling methods. Further work is required to understand the underlying reasons why proteins were consistently under-expressed in venous samples/over-expressed in capillary samples in a minority of proteins tested.
conclusionsProteomic measurement utilising capillary blood collection provides very similar results to using venous blood collection. This is a promising sign for the validity and reliability of studies using capillary blood collection, including decentralised and remote studies.
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.