Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36104118›Full record

ArticleRMD open2022

Remote self-collection of capillary blood using upper arm devices for autoantibody analysis in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Joshua Zarbl, Ekaterina Eimer, Camilla Gigg, Gerlinde Bendzuck, Marianne Korinth, Corinna Elling-Audersch, Arnd Kleyer, David Simon, Sebastian Boeltz, Martin Krusche and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RMD open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua ZarblDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Ekaterina EimerThermo Fisher Scientific, Freiburg, Germany.
Camilla GiggThermo Fisher Scientific, Freiburg, Germany.
Gerlinde BendzuckDeutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e.V, Bonn, Germany.
Marianne KorinthDeutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e.V, Bonn, Germany.
Corinna Elling-AuderschDeutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e.V, Bonn, Germany.
Arnd KleyerDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2026-7728
David SimonDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8310-7820
Sebastian BoeltzDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Martin KruscheCharite Medical Faculty Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0582-7790
Johanna MuckePoliclinic and Hiller Research Unit for Rheumatology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Felix MuehlensiepenCentre for Health Services Research Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany.
Nicolas VuillermeUniversité Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Gerhard KrönkeDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7566-4325
Georg SchettDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Johannes KnitzaDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany Johannes.Knitza@uk-erlangen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-9695-0657
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEDeutsche Rheuma-Liga · DEThermo Fisher Scientific (Germany) · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEMedizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane · DEUniversité Grenoble Alpes · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, usability and acceptability of two upper arm self-sampling devices for measurement of autoantibodies and C reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs).

methods70 consecutive patients with IMRD with previously documented autoantibodies were assigned to supervised and unsupervised self-collection of capillary blood with the Tasso+ or TAP II device. Interchangeability of 17 biomarkers with standard venesection was assessed by: concordance, correlation, paired sample hypothesis testing and Bland-Altman plots. Patients completed an evaluation questionnaire, including the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Net Promoter Score (NPS).

resultsWhile 80.0% and 77.0% were able to safely and successfully collect capillary blood using the Tasso+ and TAP II within the first attempt, 69 of 70 (98.6%) patients were successful in collecting capillary blood within two attempts. Concordance between venous and capillary samples was high; 94.7% and 99.5% for positive and negative samples, respectively. For connective tissue disease screen, anti-Ro52 and anti-proteinase 3 autoantibody levels, no significant differences were observed. Self-sampling was less painful than standard venesection for the majority of patients (Tasso+: 71%; TAP II: 63%). Both devices were well accepted (NPS; both: +28%), usability was perceived as excellent (SUS; Tasso+: 88.6 of 100; TAP II: 86.0 of 100) and 48.6 %/62.9% of patients would prefer to use the Tasso+/TAP II, respectively, instead of a traditional venous blood collection.

conclusionsRemote self-collection of capillary blood using upper arm-based devices for autoantibody and CRP analysis in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases is feasible, accurate and well accepted among patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00024925).

Indexed as

Autoimmune DiseasesRheumatic DiseasesArmAutoantibodiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAutoantibodiesAntibodies, AnticardiolipinAutoimmune DiseasesHealth services research

Identifiers

PMID36104118
PMCPMC9476144
OpenAlexW4295681505

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.