ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Evaluating blood sampling strategies within the SIREN study: the experience from a large cohort of healthcare workers in the UK.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing Participant Experiences of at-Home and Hospital-Based Biological Sampling: Cross-Sectional Insights From the SIREN Study.Health science reports · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelivering research studies that require a large number of samples to monitor specific populations is complex, often resulting in high costs and intricate logistics. We aim to describe the processes for blood sample collection and management and evaluate alternative sampling methods within a large cohort of healthcare workers in the UK (the SIREN study).
methodsWe conducted a process evaluation. First, we described blood sample collection and management across different study periods from June 2020 to March 2024 and how these evolved over time. Secondly, we compared alternative methods of blood sampling: venous phlebotomy (hospital-based) vs. capillary sampling (at-home).
resultsThe main challenges with blood sampling within SIREN stemmed from the scale and use of decentralised phlebotomy across 135 hospital sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. We adapted our sampling processes as the study progressed, overcoming most of these challenges. When comparing hospital-based and at-home sampling, overall, return rates of samples taken at home were higher than site- based samples (80% vs 71%, respectively). At-home samples took less time to be returned to UKHSA Laboratory for testing compared to hospital-based samples (median 2 days; interquartile (IQ) 2-3) vs 6 days; IQ 3-8). However, at-home samples were more likely to be considered void (4%) when tested compared to hospital-based samples (0%). Cost for hospital-based sampling was almost 3-times higher than at-home sampling (£34.05 vs £11.50, respectively), although larger sample volumes were obtained via hospital-based sampling when compared to at-home sampling (8 ml vs 600 µl of whole blood).
conclusionsSample collection and management in large scale research studies are complex. Our results support at-home blood sampling as an effective and cheaper strategy when compared to hospital-based phlebotomy and therefore should be considered as alternative sampling method for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11041050-registration date 12/01/2021.
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.