ArticlePloS one2025
Performance and feasibility of self-microsampling of capillary blood and saliva for serological testing of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSerology is a valuable tool to estimate infections, case-fatality rates, and immunity. However, venipuncture and clinical infrastructure hinder scalability. This study evaluated the performance, feasibility and user experience of using a microsampling device for self-collected capillary blood and saliva to determine total SARS-CoV-2 S RBD antibodies.
methodsIt included 149 participants with (n = 48) or without (n = 101) a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and confirmed antibodies. Venous and capillary blood were self- or professionally collected from all, and saliva was self-collected by 46/48 participants with antibodies. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 S RBD antibodies in all sample types was tested using a high-throughput platform and agreement was calculated. Intra- and inter-rater agreement between serum and capillary blood in participants with an unknown antibody status was also assessed. Participants evaluated the device's user-friendliness through questionnaires.
resultsAmong the 48 participants with known past infection and antibodies, agreement was 100% (95% CI: 92.6-100) between serum and capillary blood (self-collected or professionally collected). Self-collected saliva had slightly lower agreement with paired serum samples (95.7%, CI: 85.2-99.5). For the 101 participants without prior evidence of antibodies or infection, serum and self-collected capillary blood had good intra-rater agreement and serum and professionally collected capillary blood had almost perfect intra-rater agreement. Inter-rater agreement was also almost perfect. While 81.8% found the self-finger prick easy, 53.4% found using the microsampler easy. Among those who collected saliva, 84.8% found capillary blood easier to collect compared to saliva (52.2%).
conclusionsOur results show that detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from capillary blood and saliva collected with the VAMS microsampling device is feasible and yields valid results. To ensure accuracy and reliability, additional training in self-sampling techniques may be essential. The positive user experience further underscores the microsampling device's potential for scalable serosurveillance and strengthening pandemic preparedness efforts.
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.