ReviewACS sensors2025
Standardization of Microsampling Technologies for Accurate Sensing and Reliable Diagnostics.
Review in ACS sensors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of Dried Saliva for Molecular Diagnostics.ACS measurement science au · 2026Article
- Precision Chemistry in Precision Diagnostics.Precision chemistry · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the debilitating effect of overreliance on centralized sampling and testing, and generated significant momentum to investigate and validate sample types that are alternatives to the gold standard (e.g., anterior nasal vs nasopharyngeal swabs). As a result, sample collection is trending away from traditional methods at centralized health care facilities and toward at-home or point-of-care settings with devices that enable self-collection. With shifts away from regulated environments and trained personnel, it is important to remember that reliable measurements begin with standardized sample collection. To develop microsampling technologies for applications where the outcome can impact health care decisions, it is critical to (i) fully understand the sample collected (e.g., volume, composition, biological factors) and (ii) implement engineering controls for users and clinical workflow integration (e.g., usability, volume metering) to ensure precision and accuracy of a measurement. Blood sampling, once exclusively performed via venipuncture, has made the greatest strides toward remote collection with the introduction of lancet- and microneedle-based, capillary microsampling devices. However, challenges remain toward standardizing these methods, such as ensuring that measurements are hematocrit-independent. Other sample types (e.g., nasal fluid, saliva) face similar hurdles. In this Perspective, we review the current state of self-collection microsampling technologies and highlight the need to develop tools that can (i) standardize sample collection and (ii) seamlessly integrate with current clinical workflows. Ultimately, we advocate for continued innovation as technologies that support self-collection have the potential to greatly improve the diagnostic process for patients, reduce the burden on health care workers, and advance the shift toward decentralized testing.
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.