ArticleScientific reports2025
Feasibility of blood self-sampling with HemaSpot HF for Anti-Clostridium tetani Toxin IgG detection.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health research in humans often requires biosamples, e.g. blood. However, collecting venous blood samples poses multiple logistic challenges and needs to be carried by practitioners at study centres. Using self-collected samples of dried blood spots is an attractive alternative, but its feasibility remains to be determined. We investigated the feasibility (including acceptance) of a self-sampling device called HemaSpot HF (HS) employing the use case of anti-Clostridium tetani toxin IgG detection among 154 volunteers. Of those, n = 49 underwent an additional venous blood puncture (VBP) by medical staff (gold standard) as and control for user errors, which were determined by adding serum on HS filter paper (HemaForm (HF)). Antibody concentrations were analysed via ELISA and the serological status was determined using different cut-off values (COV). Most participants (85%) found the self-sampling using the HS device (fully) acceptable. Sensitivity for HS ranged from 70% (95% CI 0.55; 0.83; COV: 1.0 lU/mL) to 100% (95% CI 0.93; 1.00; COV: 0.01 and 0.1 lU/mL), and for HF 85% (95% CI 0.72; 0.94; 1.0 lU/mL) to 100% (95% CI 0.93; 1.00; COV: 0.01 and 0.1 lU/mL). The correlation between HS and VBP was r
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.