ArticleBioanalysis2025
Comparing capillary blood collection technologies: assessing patient experience, device performance, & clinical accuracy.
Article in Bioanalysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of upper-arm capillary blood collection for Alzheimer's disease and central nervous system biomarkers: comparison of Tasso+ and venous plasma.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Concordance of HbA1c, creatinine, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol between venous and self-collected capillary blood samples sent by mail.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2026Article
- More than a drop of blood: the paradigm shift of a large-volume capillary sample for point-of-care clinical diagnostics.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- Feasibility and validity of using self-collected capillary blood using Tasso+ for measuring Alzheimer's Disease plasma-based biomarkers among underrepresented populations.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite recent advances in capillary blood collection technologies for implementation in a patient centric healthcare world, a direct comparison of various technologies has yet to be performed. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA cross-sectional comparative study was performed by recruiting healthy subjects (
resultsUser experience and collection performance results varied across the different capillary collection technologies and a single collection technology did not stand out as superior among those investigated. As correlative results were similar across all technologies, selection of a technology may be based on the intended use population and/or other factors.
conclusionsAlthough there are still advancements to be made as well as additional studies to further evaluate the analyte equivalency of capillary and venous specimens, these technologies present a promising patient-centric option to provide clinical results and improve patient care.
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.