ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2026
Assessing VirScan serosurvey epitope profiling variability between in-clinic venous blood draw and capillary blood self-sampling device.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Timely and ongoing in-clinic sample collections are a common logistical barrier to volunteer participation and retention in longitudinal clinical studies. To remove this barrier, clinical studies have recently begun to implement the use of at-home capillary blood self-sampling devices in place of in-clinic venous blood draws for participant blood sample collection. Thus, we assessed antibody responses to a broad library of over 300 viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogens using VirScan immunoassay testing on adult volunteer capillary (serum) and venous (plasma) blood samples collected by Tasso devices and in-clinic venipunctures on the same day to determine whether self-sampling devices are a more practical and convenient alternative for future clinical studies. Most VirScan measurements of antibodies specific for clinically relevant respiratory viruses and herpesviruses had strong concordance between participant-matched Tasso and venipuncture blood samples. While we did not identify a systematic bias in most pathogen-specific antibody measurements associated with blood collection method, we did observe intrinsic VirScan inter-assay variability across some clinically relevant viruses. Together, our data demonstrate that capillary blood self-sampling devices are a practical alternative to in-clinic venipunctures for VirScan clinical research studies. However, these blood collection methods should not be used interchangeably within longitudinal studies to minimize the introduction of technical variables.IMPORTANCEOur study assessed whether capillary blood self-sampling devices could reliably replace in-clinic venous blood collection methods for the VirScan immunoassay, which can detect antibodies specific to hundreds of pathogens. Longitudinal studies requiring multiple in-clinic visits for sample collection often experience low volunteer retention because of the inconvenience of traveling to research sites. Allowing volunteers to use at-home self-sampling devices reduces the burden of travel for participants and increases access to outreach for volunteers who would otherwise not participate in research. Importantly, VirScan only requires a small sample volume, so blood self-sampling devices would be appropriate to use despite their volume collection limitations. Overall, capillary blood self-sampling devices can be a reliable and efficient method for research studies to investigate antibody responses longitudinally using VirScan. However, to limit the introduction of technical variables, collection methods should not be used interchangeably within a longitudinal study.
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.