Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 May 29;19(5):e0304155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304155

Feasibility, acceptability, and safety of a novel device for self-collecting capillary blood samples in clinical trials in the context of the pandemic and beyond

Harika Dasari 1, Anna Smyrnova 1, Jing Leng 1, Francine M Ducharme 1,2,3,*
Editor: Ramada Rateb Khasawneh4
PMCID: PMC11135758  PMID: 38809872

Abstract

Background

Home blood self-collection devices can enable remote monitoring, but their implementation requires validation. Our objectives were to explore (i) the impact of sampling sites and topical analgesia on capillary blood volume and pain perception and (ii) the safety, acceptability, and failure of capillary self-collection among adults and children using the Tasso-SST device.

Methods

We conducted a two-phase study. The investigational phase consisted of two on-site cross-sectional studies in healthy adult participants (≥ 12 years) and children (1–17 years) with their accompanying parent. Adults received 4 capillary samplings, where puncture sites and topical analgesia were randomized in a factorial design, and a venipuncture; children (and one parent) had one capillary sampling. The two co-primary outcomes were blood volume and pain. The implementation phase was conducted in two multicentre trials in participants choosing remote visits; blood volume, collection failure, adverse events, and satisfaction were documented.

Results

In the investigational phase, 90 participants and 9 children with 7 parents were enrolled; 15 adults and 2 preschoolers participated in the implementation phase. In the adult investigational study, the device collected a median (25%, 75%) of 450 (250, 550) μl of blood with no significant difference between the puncture site, topical analgesia, and its interaction. Using topical analgesia reduced pain perception by 0.61 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.24; P <0.01) points on the 11-point scale; the pain reduction varied by puncture site, with the lower back showing the most significant decrease. Overall, combining all studies and phases, the median volume collected was 425 (250, 500) μl, and the device failure rate was 4.4%; minor adverse effects were reported in 8.9% of the participants, all were willing to use the device again.

Conclusion

Capillary blood self-collection, yielding slightly less than 500 μl, proves to be a safe and relatively painless method for adults and children, with high satisfaction and low failure rates. The puncture site and topical analgesia do not affect blood volume, but topical analgesia on the lower back could reduce pain.

Introduction

During the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, investigators sought alternative methods to venous phlebotomy to facilitate the pursuit of pediatric and adult clinical trials [1]. Several home dry-blood collection kits were available, but clinical laboratories generally could not rapidly develop dry blood extraction and analytic techniques during this period. A home blood collection kit that collects and transports wet blood to designated laboratories offered an attractive alternative. Although pediatric laboratories have developed innovative techniques for small capillary volumes, such a device must still meet the minimum volume required for a given (or a series of) analytic test(s). Our challenge was to identify a capillary sampling device that was easy to use at home, collected sufficient blood volume, and was both applicable and safe in children and adults. Pediatric use entailed three additional considerations: pain, alternative puncture site to the upper arm, as well as the potential need for, and impact of, topical anesthetic on pain and blood volume.

Multiple remote capillary blood collection kits were available in 2020, including the TAP Blood Collection Device (YourBio Health, Medford, USA), the Loop One device (Loop Medical, Lausanne, Switzerland), and the Tasso-SST device (Tasso, Inc., Seattle, USA). The TAP device had been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Conformité Européene (CE) in Europe for use in adults 21 years and over; it reported an average collected blood volume of 100 μl [24]. The Loop One device could reach up to 1 ml but had not yet received regulatory approval [5]. Only the Tasso-SST device was approved for investigational use in individuals 3 months and older by the FDA and, for specific studies, by Health Canada. The manufacturer’s reported average volume per device was 250 μl of capillary blood, [6] but it could perhaps be increased with different measures to increase capillary flow [7]. We sought a device to collect a minimal total volume of 600 μl and 400 μl for adult and pediatric trials, respectively [4, 8]. After careful consideration, we selected the Tasso-SST device due to its Health Canada approval, average reported volume, and ease of use, understanding that several devices would likely be needed to reach our target blood volume. Whereas the upper arm was recommended for adults, [4, 9] a focus group of pediatricians and parents, recommended the lower back for use in children under 4 years to reduce the risk of removal by the child (Erwin Berthier, personal communication, May 2020). As the neonatal heel prick test is considered more painful than venipuncture, [10] we sought but could not find published data on the relative discomfort of capillary sampling on the lower back or upper arm vs. venipuncture. While a topical anesthetic cream reduces the discomfort in pediatric venipuncture, [11] it was unclear whether it would be indicated and/or effective for capillary sampling. If used, vasoconstriction caused by the topical anesthetic could reduce collected volume [12].

The overarching objectives were to examine the blood volume and pain of capillary self-collection using the Tasso-SST device in a variety of settings and populations; secondary outcomes included safety profile, appreciation of the training offered, acceptability, and pragmatic issues (e.g., failure rate). But first, we wished to explore the impact of sampling sites and topical analgesia on capillary blood volume and pain in adolescents and adults.

Methods

We conducted a two-phase study, including an investigational and an implementation phase, testing blood sampling with the Tasso-SST device [1315]. The investigational phase consisted of two sequential cross-sectional studies conducted on-site at the Sainte Justine University Health Centre (SJUHC), Montréal, Canada, first in adults (September 23, 2020 to 12 May 2021) and then in children-parent dyads (June 29 to July 6, 2021). The adult cross-sectional study used a factorial design to test the impact of two factors (puncture site and topical analgesia) on capillary blood volume and pain as co-primary outcomes, using four devices. In the pediatric cross-sectional study, capillary blood volume and pain were measured using a single device in children as well as their parent who opted to pre-test the sampling procedure before their child. These studies were approved by the Sainte-Justine UHC Human Research Ethics Committee (approval #2021–3067). Participants provided written informed consent (and assent for children) for study participation.

The implementation phase was conducted in two (adult and pediatric) randomized clinical trials in participants who chose remote blood testing and research visits instead of in-person appointments. Investigation Testing Authorization (ITA) applications were approved for the use of the Tasso-SST device in the (i) adult trial entitled PRevention of COVID-19 With Oral Vitamin D Supplemental Therapy in Essential healthCare Teams (PROTECT) trial—ITA #322424 (February 8 to May 4, 2021)—NCT04483635; [13] (ii) the pediatric trial entitled Vitamin D In the Prevention of Viral-induced Asthma in Preschoolers (DIVA) trial—ITA #334647 (January 27 to February 17, 2022)—NCT03365687 [15]. All sites received ethics approval before the beginning of recruitment at their site. Adults or parents of participating preschoolers provided informed consent; children old enough to understand, provided assent. The results of blood analyses are reported elsewhere [16].

Investigational phase

Subjects

Individuals aged 12 years or older were eligible to participate in the ‘adult’ study during the investigational phase. Children aged 1 to 17 years (and one of their parents) were eligible for the child-parent dyad study. As this investigational phase was conducted before the widespread availability of testing and COVID-19 vaccination, patients at risk (e.g., recent travel or high-risk contact) or symptomatic (suspected or confirmed) from COVID-19 infection were excluded. Participants received a $10 gift card and were offered their results for the capillary blood Nadal® COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (nal von minden GmbH, Moers, Germany) for COVID-19.

Tested device

The TASSO-SST device comprises a collection unit and reservoir as well as packaging material to return the sample. The device is activated through the press of a button, which initiates a retractable lancet (16-gauge) that punctures the skin, facilitated by a slight vacuum (40 kPa); the capillary blood is collected in a small detachable reservoir containing a thixotropic serum separator gel. When the blood flow ceases, the device is peeled off the skin [17]. The TASSO-SST kit includes alcohol wipes, a single-use blood collection device, a collection tube lid, a biohazard bag with a gauge, a band-aid for post-procedure care, and a shipping box meeting package requirements for UN3373, ensuring safe shipment of biological substances.

Randomisation and allocation

In the adult investigational phase, puncture sites (upper arm and lower back) and topical analgesic (yes or no) were randomly assigned using a 4 x 2 factorial design with a block randomization method using SAS PROC PLAN (SAS Institute Software, Cary, NC, USA). The allocation was implemented using sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes.

Outcomes

In both studies, blood volume and perceived pain were the two co-primary outcomes, the former to plan the number of devices needed for any target blood volume, the latter as an element of acceptability. The amount of capillary blood collected in the detachable collection reservoir was estimated by comparing its volume to a reference reservoir graded in 50 μl increments (maximum: 750 μl); the volume was recorded as the middle value if the measurement was between two marks. The pain was assessed on the 11-point validated Louisiana Pain Scale from 0 (none) to 10 (unspeakable) [18, 19]. Secondary outcomes included adverse health events, appreciation of the training (instructional brochure, instructional video, life guidance by research personnel, and readiness to use the device), acceptability (overall satisfaction, willingness to use again, preference over venipuncture in a hospital, pain of venipuncture), and pragmatic considerations (i.e., sampling duration, the number of devices used, and device failure rate) (Fig 1). In addition, the perceived usefulness of distraction during blood collection was recorded for children in the child-parent dyad. Adverse health events (AHE) were documented immediately and systematically solicited 24 hours later. A questionnaire served to ascertain acceptability among participants, specifically regarding their satisfaction, willingness to use the device again, preference for it over venipuncture in a hospital setting, and the level of pain experienced during the procedure (S1 Table); responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree) or as a yes/no answer (S2 Table). The device failure rate was determined by the inability to collect a minimal blood volume of 100 μl in the aliquot tube, translating into approximately 50 μl of serum, the minimum volume for many analytes (such as calcium/phosphorus/alkaline phosphatase or 25-hydroxyvitamin D). The "sampling duration" refers to the time elapsed from pushing the button on the device and the cessation of blood collection.

Fig 1. Schedule of procedures testing the applicability and safety of using self-capillary blood collection.

Fig 1

Procedures

Before sampling, subjects were instructed to watch the online instructional video (2.25 minutes for adults: 8.75 minutes for children and parents) and read the Health Canada-approved study- and age-specific step-by-step graphic brochure on using the Tasso-SST device (S1 Fig). Before using the device, the designated site was vigorously rubbed for 45 seconds and disinfected. In the adult investigational study, approximately 5 grams of 4% lidocaine (Maxilene 4 cream, RGR Pharma Ltd., Lasalle, ON) covered by waterproof transparent dressing (Tegaderm, 3M Canada, London, ON) was applied 30 minutes before capillary sampling for the two sites allocated to topical analgesia; a blood sample of 6–10 ml was also collected via venipuncture by a qualified nurse. The same training and capillary site preparation process were followed in the child-parent dyad study with the following differences: (i) parents were offered to pre-test one sampling device on their arm (and be included as study participants) before using it on their child, (ii) only one device was applied per child either on the upper arm (≥4 years) or lower back (<4 years) based on age; (iii) no topical anesthesia or venipuncture was offered.

Implementation phase

Subjects

The study selection of the two (adult and pediatric) Phase 3 interventional trials, each testing high-dose vitamin D supplementation, has been described elsewhere [11, 13]. Briefly, healthcare professionals enrolled in the PROTECT trial and preschoolers (aged 1 to 5 years) enrolled in the DIVA trial were given the option of an in-person visit with a venipuncture or a remote visit with capillary blood drawn via the Tasso-SST device during each encounter requiring blood sampling. In the PROTECT trial, capillary blood collections were done remotely, whereas, in DIVA, capillary blood was collected either remotely or on-site for preschoolers who were unable or refused to have venipuncture. Each adult was given four devices, while each child received up to two devices to ensure the collection of the desired blood volume.

Outcomes

The main outcome was the blood volume collected. Secondary outcomes included adverse health events (reported immediately or spontaneously later), acceptability (willingness to use the device again), and pragmatic consideration (number of devices, failure rate, and sampling problems) (Fig 1).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics served to report participant demographics and outcomes. After the Shapiro-Wilk normality test to verify the continuous outcomes distribution, data were presented as mean ± standard deviation [SD] or median (25%, 75%), as indicated. We conducted a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to explore the impact of topical analgesia and puncture site on the co-primary outcomes of pain and volume, with age (continuous), sex (dichotomous), order, and hand dominance as potential covariates. When a significant main effect or interaction was found, pairwise comparisons described the observation. When analyzing data, we considered log-transformed Likert scales to improve the normal distribution. Robust mixed ANOVA was performed when the data did not completely meet the assumptions underlying the analysis of variance [2022]. Patient-reported outcomes measured on 5-point Likert scales were presented as diverging stacked bar charts.

As a post hoc analysis, we investigated the impact of age (continuous), sex, and body mass index (BMI) categorized as per the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, on capillary blood volume across all phases using multiple linear regression analysis [23]. To ensure uniformity and avoid over-representing individuals with multiple capillary samples, we considered only the volume obtained with the first Tasso-SST device applied on the upper arm (except for children <4 years) without topical anesthesia. A case-wise deletion approach was performed for the primary analysis because of the low of missing data (due to participant withdrawal or device failure) [24]. Statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2022) and STATA version 15 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas). All tests were 2-sided; an alpha level <0.05 was deemed statistically significant.

Results

Ninety individuals participated in the adult study, with one person withdrawing consent; 9 children (2 to 17 years) and 7 parents participated in the “child-parent dyad” study. During the implementation phase, 15 (44%) of 34 adult healthcare professionals enrolled in the PROTECT trial and during the 4-month test period of the DIVA trial, 2 (4%) of 47 preschoolers participated in at least one capillary blood collection (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of participants.

  A. Investigational phase B. Implementation phase
Adult Child PROTECT DIVA
  N = 90 adults N = 9 children N = 7 parents N = 15 adults N = 2 children
Age        
Median (25%, 75%) 32 (26, 40) 14 (12, 16)  44 (43, 45) 48.0 (25.0, 58.0) 2 (1.5, 2)
Male, n (%) 38 (44.1) 5 (55.6)  2 (28.6) 0 (0) 1 (50)
Body Mass Index * (n = 25)    
    Normal weight, n (%) 19 (76) 5 (55.6) 3 (42.9) 9 (60) 2 (100)
    Overweight, n (%) 5 (20) 2 (22.2) 2 (28.6) 2 (13.33) 0 (0)
    Obese, n (%) 1(4) 0 (0) 2 (28.6) 4 (26.66) 0 (0)
Hand dominance      
    Right, n (%) 83 (92.2) n/a n/a n/a n/a
    Left, n (%) 7 (7.78) n/a n/a n/a n/a

*To determine weight categories, we used the World Health Organization BMI-for-age Z-scores for participants aged 1–19 years. Those with scores from -2 to 0.99 were classified as underweight or normal weight, 1–1.99 as overweight, and 2–2.99 as obese. For adults over 19 years, we categorized individuals based on their absolute BMI: >18.5 to <25 as normal weight, >25 to <30 as overweight, and >30 as obese.

†Of note, the height and weight required for calculating Body Mass Index (BMI) were recorded for only 25 out of 90 participants of the investigational adult study when we began to suspect that blood volume might be influenced by obesity, then it was collected for all successive phases.

Investigational phase

In the adult study, the median (25%, 75%) capillary blood volume collected, irrespective of puncture site (back or arm) and topical analgesia use (or not), was 450 (250, 550) μl; no statistically significant difference was observed by, or interaction between, puncture sites and analgesia use (Fig 2A). Females, on average, collected 41 μl more blood than males after controlling for puncture site, analgesia use, and age (continuous) (P = 0.03). The median perceived pain without topical analgesia was 1 (1, 2) points. Topical analgesia significantly reduced the pain by 0.61 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.97; P <0.001) points on the 11-point scale, with a significant interaction observed between puncture site and analgesia use; perceived pain was higher by an average of 0.94 (95% CI: 1.5, 0.4) point for a puncture on the lower back without, compared to the arm with, analgesic (1.87 vs. 0.93; P<0.001) (Fig 2B). Of note, the order of capillary samplings and dominant-hand side did not significantly affect blood volume or pain. A Mann-Whitney test revealed that venipuncture was perceived as significantly more painful than the capillary pain score at two sites (arm and back) without topical analgesia (2(1, 3) vs.1(1, 2); z = -3.367, P<0.001) (S2 Fig).

Fig 2. Distribution of blood volume and pain perception in the adult investigational phase.

Fig 2

The box plots show the distribution of median capillary blood volume (in μl) in A and of the pain level on the 11-point Louisiane pain scale in B, displayed by puncture site (upper arm or lower back) and use of topical analgesia (use in dark or no in clear boxes). The median volume is depicted in each box. The mean group difference with 95% CI within the puncture sites, between topical analgesia use or not, is displayed on top of the box plots.

In the “child-parent dyad” study, the median capillary blood volume collected in 9 children and 7 adults was 450 (400, 475) μl and 350 (200, 400) μl, respectively; no statistically significant difference was observed across age groups on this small sample. In children aged 4 years and over, the median (range) pain score was 0.5 (0 to 7); the parent of the 2-year-old reported the child’s pain at 4. Participating parents who tested the device on themselves reported minimal median (range) pain (0 [0 to 1] point) (S3 Fig).

After watching the instructional video, most participants also appreciated the brochure and recommended that both resources be provided for training; all participants expressed readiness to use the Tasso-SST device. Most participants (83% of adults) found live guidance helpful (Fig 3). The majority of the adults (96%) and parents (88%) reported positive experiences with the capillary self-collection, and most (88% adults and 67% parents) preferred the self-collection device over a venipuncture at a hospital (S3 Table). The median sampling duration per device during the investigational phase (adult and child-parent dyad) was 5.01 (3.33, 6.38) minutes.

Fig 3. Feedback from participants on training, satisfaction and preference with the capillary sampling device.

Fig 3

Questionnaire responses of participants enrolled in the adult investigation phase are displayed in Panel A, and those of children and their parent enrolled in the child-parent dyad in Panel B. A bar chart is provided for each question on the y-axis regarding the instructional materials, live guidance, experience and preference. The proportion of participants with agreement (i.e., answered 4 or 5 on the 5-point Likert scale) is displayed on the right of the identity line. In contrast, neutral responses are straddling, and disagreement is shown on the left of the identity line.

Implementation phase

The 15 adults from the PROTECT trial provided 29 capillary samples, each device collecting a median of 350 (250, 450) μl; the 2 children in the DIVA trial provided 4 capillary samples, each device collecting 200 (225, 275) μl (Fig 4). Five adults (17.2%) encountered issues with at least one sampling, namely, insufficient blood and blood coagulation; no such problems were reported for children. No adverse health events were reported.

Fig 4. Distribution of capillary blood volume per device across all phases.

Fig 4

The box plots show the distribution of median capillary blood volume (in μl) per device in the adult and child-parent dyad study during the investigational phase and in the PROTECT and DIVA studies during the implementation phase. Horizontal lines within each box plot represent the median.

Combined investigation and implementation phases

Combining all 123 participants, a median of 425 (250, 500) μl was collected with the first device used on the age-recommended puncture site without topical analgesia. In the 59 participants in whom BMI was documented, no statistically significant impact of age (<4 vs. ≥4 years), sex, and BMI category (normal, overweight, obese) was observed. However, across all study phases (435 successful samplings), a median of 450 (250, 500) μl of capillary blood was collected per device.

Of the 374 successful capillary blood draws in the investigational phase, 11 (12.2%) participants reported adverse effects immediately or within 24 hours; all were minor. Of note, two self-resolving vasovagal syncopes occurred in an adolescent, one during the venous and one during the first capillary sampling (Table 2). In all phases of the study, participants and research staff expressed willingness to use the device again. The overall failure rate was 4.4% (20/452), attributed to device malfunction, blood coagulation, or insufficient blood collection (<100 μl).

Table 2. Adverse health events.

  A. Investigational phase B. Implementation phase
  Adult Child-Parent Dyad PROTECT DIVA
  N = 90 N = 90 N = 7 adults N = 9 children N = 15 adults N = 2 Children
Sampling method Venous Capillary Capillary Capillary Capillary Capillary
Subjects with ≥ 1 adverse events, n (%) * 11 (12.2) 11 (12.2) 0 0 0 0
Number of sampling n = 90 n = 358        
Immediate            
Vasovagal syncope 1 (1.1) 1 (0.3) 0 0 0 0
Bleeding 0 1 (0.3) 0 0 0 0
In the next 24 hrs            
Bruise 9 (10) 6 (1.7) 0 0 0 0
Itchiness 0 1 (0.3) 0 0 0 0
Swelling 1 (1.1) 1 (0.3) 0 0 0 0
Tenderness 5 (5.6) 7 (2.0) 0 0 0 0
Total 16 (17.8) 16 (4.5) 0 0 0 0

*Number of subjects reporting an AE on at least one puncture site of the TASSO application and venipuncture.

† Number of immediate and 24-hour adverse events are reported as a percentage of total number of (venipuncture and capillary) samplings. Delayed AHE may be underreported during the implementation phase as AHE in the next 24 hours was actively sought for the investigational phase.

‡Indicates prolonged (more than 5 minutes) bleeding after blood collection at the puncture site.

Discussion

Our research evaluated the real-life effectiveness, acceptability, and safety of capillary self-collection using the Tasso-SST device in adults and children. Across all phases of the study, a median of 450 μl of capillary blood was collected per device. Minimal pain was reported during the investigational phase. Overall, there was great appreciation of the training by video and brochure, high satisfaction with the device, low failure rate, and few adverse health effects.

With a 45-second vigorous rubbing period, we collected a median of 150 to 250 μl more capillary volume than the 200–300 μl range advertised in the manufacturer’s brochure [25]. Our median volume of 450 μl was larger than in other studies using the same device [4, 9]. Of note, the puncture site, use of topical analgesia, or dominant side did not significantly affect blood collection volume. When adjusted for confounders, including age, females tended to collect 41 μl more capillary blood than males in the adult investigational study; this effect disappears when combining all phases. Obesity did not significantly impact blood volume, contrary to our initial suspicion that it could decrease capillary blood flow [26]. Consequently, we suspect that site preparation with prolonged vigorous rubbing before puncture may have been the most determinant factor in maximizing capillary blood volume.

When deciding how many devices to provide for blood sampling at home, device failure and target blood volume must be considered. In our experience, the failure rate for collecting a minimum of 100 μl of blood was less than 5%. Other studies using the Tasso-SST device reported failure rates (either insufficient blood or inability to collect any blood) ranging from 3.3% to 20% [4, 8, 9, 27, 28]. To achieve the desired blood volume, we recommend providing a sufficient number of devices, calculated by assuming no more than a median blood volume of 450 μl per device, with extra devices to accommodate suboptimal volume (250 uL (lower volume quartile) and device failure (5%). For preschoolers, conservatively assuming a volume of 250μl/device may be preferable, based on very limited data.

Minimal capillary sampling pain was reported across the investigational phase with no significant impact of age, gender, dominant side, and BMI. There was a statistically significant difference in pain perception between puncture sites. Adolescents and adults reported a median pain of 2 points for puncture in the lower back without analgesia compared to 1 point for all other site-analgesia combinations. Given the small sample size and absence of a factorial design, we could not validate these findings and effect size among children, let alone preschoolers for whom the lower back is recommended based on an unpublished focus group. Pain research suggested that the minimal clinically significant difference (MCSD) in children varies between 1 or 2 points; [8, 29, 30], whereas for adults, it was 1.4 points [31]. It is unclear if findings about topical analgesia obtained in individuals 12 years and older can be generalized to children; if so, the observed 0.6-point difference with or without topical analgesia, regardless of site, lacks clinical importance. The extension of these findings to preschoolers below 4 years old is also uncertain. In contrast, adults reported significantly less pain with capillary sampling than with venous sampling, consistent with previous research findings [9, 28]. Therefore, Capillary sampling is generally deemed less painful than venipuncture in adults, rendering it acceptable across all age groups. For very young children, considering the upper arm or providing topical analgesia for the lower back seems reasonable.

Consistent with other studies, [3234] the Tasso-SST device appears safe with minimal risk of adverse effects. We observed a lower risk of bruising (1.7%) with capillary than venous sampling (10%); our proportion of bruising was lower than reported in similar studies (5%) [32, 34]. In a previous study in adults, 8.3% of participants exhibited scarring at the puncture site 90 days post-blood collection [28]. However, we did not systematically solicit adverse effects beyond 24 hours in our study. Of note, as one participant experienced a vasovagal syncope with both venous and capillary samplings, it seems reasonable to systematically enquire about such predisposition; if present, we advise caution and ensuring to have an accompanying adult to prevent any fall during the capillary sampling [34].

The technical and logistical challenges of implementing a completely remote blood collection require clear instructions describing the procedure and shipping instructions [34, 35]. After watching our instructional video and reading the brochure, all participants felt comfortable testing the device during the investigation phase. These findings were similar to the Human Epidemiology and RespOnse to the SARS-CoV-2 (HEROS) study, in which 87% of participants were confident in testing the Tasso-SST device after reviewing the provided instructional materials [34]. Most participants in our study found the packaging and shipping instructions easy to understand. Live guidance was helpful for many adults during first use, and some parents expressed interest in receiving it again when using the device with their child.

In line with recent studies, [9, 33, 3638]. an overwhelming majority of participants had a positive experience with the device for capillary self-sampling. Still, some parents preferred venous sampling, perhaps due to discomfort about being responsible for the procedure instead of medical personnel. Overall, all participants expressed their willingness to use the device again, consistent with previous studies conducted on adults and children [33, 34, 36, 38]. The median duration of sampling using the device was comparable to a prior study that employed the TASSO-SST device [8].

We acknowledge the following strengths and limitations. Our rigorous design to test the impact of the puncture site and topical analgesia use on blood volume and pain perception in adolescents and adults, confirming no impact on the volume and negligible impact on pain, may not be generalizable to young children. We did not repeat the factorial design in children to avoid subjecting them to four punctures; caution is advised when extrapolating study results to young children. Yet, our estimate of volume, acceptability, pragmatic considerations, and safety are based on a total of 119 participants of all ages, with a low dropout rate. Adverse events were documented for 24 hours in the investigational phase and throughout the study participation, which lasted 4 to 8 weeks in the PROTECT trial and 7 months in the DIVA trial. There were no reports of long-term adverse effects or scarring, but long-term local effects were not systematically checked. During the pandemic, when we offered remote trial visits (and blood sampling), we did not investigate the reason(s) for preferring in-person visits, nor could we distinguish factors related to the visits (convenience of the visit place and time, other elements of the medical/research follow-up), sampling (comfort with procedure, flexibility of time) and host (health care professionals in PROTECT vs. parents of very young children in DIVA) affecting this decision. The cohort selection in the implementation phase, particularly health care professionals in PROTECT, may have resulted in an overestimation of observed feasibility and satisfaction. We suspect the low uptake of remote visits in the DIVA trial may be due to a preference for in-person medical visits and hesitation to use the technique on young children. More data is needed to evaluate implementation in preschoolers.

Conclusion

In summary, capillary blood collection using the Tasso-SST device appears to be an acceptable, safe, and relatively painless method with high satisfaction that can serve as a viable alternative to venous blood collection in adults and children. With good guidance, self-collected capillary blood devices can be used to conduct clinical trials remotely and as an alternative to venipuncture on-site in participants in all age groups.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Questionnaire ascertaining training appreciation and acceptability in the adult study of the investigational phase.

Reprinted from [25] under a CC BY license, with permission from Tasso Inc., original copyright [2020].

(DOCX)

pone.0304155.s001.docx (14.1KB, docx)
S2 Table. Questionnaire ascertaining training appreciation and acceptability in the child-parent dyad study of the investigational phase.

(DOCX)

pone.0304155.s002.docx (14.7KB, docx)
S3 Table. Patient-reported outcomes.

(DOCX)

pone.0304155.s003.docx (20.3KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Instructional brochure on the application of TASSO-SST device provided to participants in the investigational phase.

(PDF)

pone.0304155.s004.pdf (453.4KB, pdf)
S2 Fig. Reported pain by puncture site and topical analgesia use in the adult investigational phase.

(PDF)

pone.0304155.s005.pdf (327.1KB, pdf)
S3 Fig. Reported pain by age group in the child-parent dyad investigational phase as above.

(PDF)

pone.0304155.s006.pdf (248.4KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the infrastructure support of the Fonds de la Recherche du Québec en Santé (FRQS) provided to the Research Institutes of the Sainte-Justine University Health Centre (SJUHC). We thank the research staff and study participants enrolled in all study aspects.

Data Availability

The dissemination of data to the public is precluded due to an omission pertaining to the inclusion of a data-sharing provision within the consent forms, as mandated by the Research Ethics Board. Anonymized Data are available from the CHU Sainte Justine Institutional Data Access / Ethics Committee (contact via ethique.hsj@ssss.gouv.qc.ca) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by a grant awarded to FMD through a peer-reviewed process of the COVID-19 May 2020 Rapid Response Funding Opportunity by the Canadian Institute of Health Research [grant no. 447317]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Anderson M. How the COVID-19 pandemic is changing clinical trial conduct and driving innovation in bioanalysis. Bioanalysis. 2021;13(15):1195–203. doi: 10.4155/bio-2021-0107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.FDA. 510(k) Substantial Equivalence Determination Decision Summary.
  • 3.TAP Blood Collection Device Receives CE Mark2018 August 13 2022. Available from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tap-blood-collection-device-receives-ce-mark-300621712.html.
  • 4.Hendelman T, Chaudhary A, LeClair AC, van Leuven K, Chee J, Fink SL, et al. Self-collection of capillary blood using Tasso-SST devices for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody testing. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0255841. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Loop Medical [Available from: https://www.loop-medical.com/.
  • 6.Tasso, Inc [Available from: https://www.tassoinc.com/.
  • 7.Men S, Wong JM, Welch EJ, Xu J, Song S, Deegan AJ, et al. OCT-based angiography of human dermal microvascular reactions to local stimuli: Implications for increasing capillary blood collection volumes. Lasers Surg Med. 2018;50(9):908–16. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Knitza J, Tascilar K, Vuillerme N, Eimer E, Matusewicz P, Corte G, et al. Accuracy and tolerability of self-sampling of capillary blood for analysis of inflammation and autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis patients—results from a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Research & Therapy. 2022;24(1):125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zarbl J, Eimer E, Gigg C, Bendzuck G, Korinth M, Elling-Audersch C, et al. Remote self-collection of capillary blood using upper arm devices for autoantibody analysis in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic diseases. RMD Open. 2022;8(2). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shah VS, Ohlsson A. Venepuncture versus heel lance for blood sampling in term neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(10):Cd001452. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001452.pub4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pour PS, Ameri GF, Kazemi M, Jahani Y. Comparison of Effects of Local Anesthesia and Two-Point Acupressure on the Severity of Venipuncture Pain Among Hospitalized 6-12-Year-Old Children. J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2017;10(3):187–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jams.2017.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Browne J, Awad I, Plant R, McAdoo J, Shorten G. Topical amethocaine (Ametop) is superior to EMLA for intravenous cannulation. Eutectic mixture of local anesthetics. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46(11):1014–8. doi: 10.1007/BF03013194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ducharme FM, Tremblay C, Golchi S, Hosseini B, Longo C, White JH, et al. Prevention of COVID-19 with oral vitamin D supplemental therapy in essential healthcare teams (PROTECT): protocol for a multicentre, triple-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2023;13(5):e064058. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hosseini B, Dasari H, Smyrnova A, Bourassa C, Leng J, Renaud C, et al. Concordance in COVID-19 serology, bone mineralization, and inflammatory analytes between venous and self-collected capillary blood samples exposed to various pre-analytical conditions. Ann Clin Biochem. 2023:45632231159279. doi: 10.1177/00045632231159279 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jensen ME, Ducharme FM, Alos N, Mailhot G, Mâsse B, White JH, et al. Vitamin D in the prevention of exacerbations of asthma in preschoolers (DIVA): protocol for a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled triple-blind trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e033075. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hosseini B, Tremblay CL, Longo C, Glochi S, White JH, Quach C, et al. Oral vitamin D supplemental therapy to attain a desired serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration in essential healthcare teams. Trials. 2022;23(1):1019. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06944-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tasso I. TASSO OnDemand Blood Collection Platform. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Specialists LP. Pain Scale: help your doctors understand you [Available from: https://www.louisianapain.com/blog/pain-scale-help-your-doctor-understand-you. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Karcioglu O, Topacoglu H, Dikme O, Dikme O. A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use? Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(4):707–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ito PK. 7 Robustness of ANOVA and MANOVA test procedures. Analysis of Variance. 1: Elsevier; 1980. p. 199–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wilcox R. Robustness in ANOVA. Applied analysis of variance in behavioral science. Statistics: Textbooks and monographs, Vol. 137. New York, NY, US: Marcel Dekker; 1993. p. 345–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wilcox RR. Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing: Academic Press; 2016. [cited 2023 July 19]. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Must A, Anderson SE. Body mass index in children and adolescents: considerations for population-based applications. Int J Obes (Lond). 2006;30(4):590–4. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhang Y, Long Q. Assessing Fairness in the Presence of Missing Data. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2021;34:16007–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tasso I. The TASSO-SST OnDemand Device   https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60da6eca05215e687a479088/t/610c7520dde1d36bf26e4425/1628206373638/TASSO-SST_ProductBrochure.pdf2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Paavonsalo S, Hariharan S, Lackman MH, Karaman S. Capillary Rarefaction in Obesity and Metabolic Diseases-Organ-Specificity and Possible Mechanisms. Cells. 2020;9(12). doi: 10.3390/cells9122683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.King ER, Garrett HE, Abernathy H, Cassidy CA, Cabell CR, Shook-Sa BE, et al. Comparison of capillary blood self-collection using the Tasso-SST device with venous phlebotomy for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement. J Immunol Methods. 2023;520:113523. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2023.113523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Schmetzer C, Vogt E, Stellar L, Godonou ET, Liphardt AM, Muehlensiepen F, et al. Self-collection of capillary blood and saliva to determine COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and health professionals. Front Public Health. 2022;10:994770. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.994770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tsze DS, Hirschfeld G, von Baeyer CL, Suarez LE, Dayan PS. Changes in Pain Score Associated With Clinically Meaningful Outcomes in Children With Acute Pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26(9):1002–13. doi: 10.1111/acem.13683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bailey B, Daoust R, Doyon-Trottier E, Dauphin-Pierre S, Gravel J. Validation and properties of the verbal numeric scale in children with acute pain. Pain. 2010;149(2):216–21. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kendrick DB, Strout TD. The minimum clinically significant difference in patient-assigned numeric scores for pain. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23(7):828–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2005.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Noble LD, Dixon C, Moran A, Trottet C, Majam M, Ismail S, et al. Painless Capillary Blood Collection: A Rapid Evaluation of the Onflow Device. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wickremsinhe E, Fantana A, Berthier E, Quist BA, Lopez de Castilla D, Fix C, et al. Standard Venipuncture vs a Capillary Blood Collection Device for the Prospective Determination of Abnormal Liver Chemistry. J Appl Lab Med. 2023;8(3):535–50. doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfac127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Fulkerson PC, Lussier SJ, Bendixsen CG, Castina SM, Gebretsadik T, Marlin JS, et al. Human Epidemiology and RespOnse to SARS-CoV-2 (HEROS): Objectives, Design and Enrollment Results of a 12-City Remote Observational Surveillance Study of Households with Children using Direct-to-Participant Methods. medRxiv. 2022. doi: 10.1101/2022.07.09.22277457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vusirikala A, Whitaker H, Jones S, Tessier E, Borrow R, Linley E, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in university students: Cross-sectional study, December 2020, England. J Infect. 2021;83(1):104–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.04.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wixted D, Neighbors CE, Pieper CF, Wu A, Kingsbury C, Register H, et al. Comparison of a Blood Self-Collection System with Routine Phlebotomy for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(8). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12081857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mohammed T, Brewer JVV, Pyatt M, Whitbourne SB, Gaziano JM, Edson C, et al. Evaluation of independent self-collected blood specimens for COVID-19 antibody detection among the US veteran population. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022;104(2):115770. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cannon CA, Ramchandani MS, Golden MR. Feasibility of a novel self-collection method for blood samples and its acceptability for future home-based PrEP monitoring. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):459. doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07432-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ramada Rateb Khasawneh

6 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-28982Feasibility, acceptability, and safety of a novel device for self-collecting capillary blood samples in clinical trials in the context of the pandemic and beyondPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ducharme,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

it a nice work .. but you need to check the English language and submit the row data 

The device exists, is in use, and has been tested. However, I did not understand the desired benefit from the research

first the sample size are really too small to drew a conclusion 

the pain issue can't be measure just by asking ... also it is not the main issue when you collecting blood

I really like the idea of using the device ... mainly maybe for cancer patients 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ramada Rateb Khasawneh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure you have included the registration number for the clinical trial referenced in the manuscript.

3. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"FMD has received unrestricted research funds from AstraZeneca, Covis Pharma,

GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Canada, Novartis, Teva, Trudell Medical; GlaxoSmithKline

and MEDteq in partnership with Thorasys Inc., as well as an honorarium for

consultancy work from AstraZeneca, Covis Pharma, Sanofi, Teva, and Thorasys Inc.;

and honorarium as an invited speaker from Covis Pharma, Jean-Coutu Pharmacy and Brunet Pharmacy. All other co-authors have no conflict of interest."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. We note that Figure S1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure S1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

it is a nice paper

but you need to check the English language and submit the row data

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Paper Review: "Feasibility, Acceptability, and Safety of a New Device for Self-Collection of Capillary Blood Samples in Clinical Research in Pandemic and Post-Pandemic Situations" Abstract: This paper shows that gender, acceptability, and safety of new self-collection capillary blood devices, particularly the Tasso SST device.

The study consists of two phases: a research phase with on-site visits and an implementation phase with remote visits.

Results will focus on blood volume, pain perception, device failure, adverse events, and participant satisfaction.

Advantages:

1.Comprehensive approach: Comprehensive design of the study covering both on-site and remote scenarios provides a comprehensive understanding of the device's applicability.

2.Different participant demographics: The inclusion of adults and children in the study phase with different puncture sites and analgesic options increases the relevance of the study and increases the potential for broader application .

3.Clear display of results: Clear display of results such as mean blood volume, change in pain perception, device failure rate, and adverse events. This transparency helps interpret the meaning of the research.

4.Practical Implementation: The inclusion of a remote implementation phase is in line with the evolving trend of decentralized healthcare and increases the practical value of the research.

Areas for improvement:

1. Long-term follow-up: Although this article refers to safety and satisfaction, longer-term follow-up may improve continued adoption and safety of self-collection devices over time. It may give you some insight about sexuality.

2. Comparative analysis: Comparative analysis using traditional venipuncture or other self-sampling devices strengthens the paper's contribution by providing context and benchmarks.

3.Variation in pain perception: Examining variation in pain perception across different individuals and age groups can lead to a more nuanced understanding of subjective experience.

4.Discussion of Limitations: Although the results are promising, a discussion of the study's limitations, such as potential biases or specific challenges encountered during the study, would add additional depth to the paper.

Conclusion: This article provides valuable insight into the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of the Tasso SST device for self-collection of capillary blood.

This study contributes to the evolution of the landscape of remote monitoring in clinical trials with its integrative design and clear presentation of results.

Implementation of the suggested improvements will further increase the impact and relevance of the article in the broader medical field.

Reviewer #2: The article explores the feasibility of capillary blood self-collection using the Tasso-SST device for remote monitoring. I appreciate the authors' attention to this important topic and their thorough exploration of the impact of sampling sites and topical analgesia on capillary blood volume and pain perception. The study's findings have significant implications for remote monitoring and the use of self-collection devices in healthcare, and the high satisfaction and safety levels reported are promising for the future implementation of such methods. While the article is well-written, it is important to ensure that the reference number comes after the punctuation for consistency and clarity in scientific writing.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 29;19(5):e0304155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304155.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Feb 2024

Feasibility, acceptability, and safety of a novel device for self-collecting capillary blood samples in clinical trials in the context of the pandemic and beyond [PONE-D-23-28982]

A point-by-point response to the Editors’ and Reviewers’ comments

Please note that our responses hereafter are in bold.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We verified the style templates and updated the manuscript accordingly.

2. Please ensure you have included the registration number for the clinical trial referenced in the manuscript.

We have included the NCT registration numbers for the PROTECT and DIVA clinical trials accordingly.

3. Note from Emily Chenette, editor-in-chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

We have discussed the issue with the Research Ethics Board; as we did not include a data sharing section in the consent forms, the REB recommends that we release the anonymized data upon request after review of the intended use. We are considering making the final available upon request on the Harvard Data verse: a DOI will be provided upon final acceptance of the manuscript. We have therefore clarified this in the Availability statement section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"FMD has received unrestricted research funds from AstraZeneca, Covis Pharma,

GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Canada, Novartis, Teva, Trudell Medical; GlaxoSmithKline

and MEDteq in partnership with Thorasys Inc., as well as an honorarium for

consultancy work from AstraZeneca, Covis Pharma, Sanofi, Teva, and Thorasys Inc.;

and honorarium as an invited speaker from Covis Pharma, Jean-Coutu Pharmacy and Brunet Pharmacy. All other co-authors have no conflict of interest."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

We confirm that the research funds awarded to FMD do not alter our adherence to all PLOS ONE policies and have included the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policy on sharing data and materials "in the revised manuscript.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

An updated competing interests statement has been included in the cover letter.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

As addressed in question 3, we have discussed the issue with the Research Ethics Board; as we did not include a data sharing section in the consent forms, the REB recommends that we release the anonymized data upon request after review of the intended use. We are considering the use of the Harvard Data verse but are currently identifying the contact person that would be responsible for data access. In a first step, the authors’ names will be the main contact until an institutional contact/email address devoted to reviewing data access request is decided. A DOI will be provided upon final acceptance of the manuscript. We have, therefore, clarified this in the Availability statement section.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

ORCID iD for the corresponding author, Dr. Francine Ducharme was already provided in our initial submission.

7. We note that Figure S1 in your submission contains copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure S1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

We have attached the content permission form for the said Figure S1, under filename ‘Content_Permission_Tasso_2023-12-20.pdf’ and added the requested caption in the legend of Figure S1 appearing on the last page of the manuscript.

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check the copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is, therefore, for illustrative purposes only.

Not applicable.

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We have made modifications to the reference list, addressing an issue where a reference was duplicated during the verification process. Furthermore, we have included one additional reference in the discussion in response to one of the reviewer’s comments. The revised reference list now comprises 38 entries, with the removal of the duplicated entry and the addition of the new reference.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you, no modifications needed.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Thank you, no modifications are needed.

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exceptions (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information or deposited in a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you, no modifications needed

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you, no modifications needed

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Paper Review: "Feasibility, Acceptability, and Safety of a New Device for Self-Collection of Capillary Blood Samples in Clinical Research in Pandemic and Post-Pandemic Situations" Abstract: This paper shows that gender, acceptability, and safety of new self-collection capillary blood devices, particularly the Tasso SST device.

The study consists of two phases: a research phase with on-site visits and an implementation phase with remote visits.

Results will focus on blood volume, pain perception, device failure, adverse events, and participant satisfaction.

Advantages:

1.Comprehensive approach: Comprehensive design of the study covering both on-site and remote scenarios provides a comprehensive understanding of the device's applicability.

2.Different participant demographics: The inclusion of adults and children in the study phase with different puncture sites and analgesic options increases the relevance of the study and increases the potential for broader application .

3.Clear display of results: Clear display of results such as mean blood volume, change in pain perception, device failure rate, and adverse events. This transparency helps interpret the meaning of the research.

4.Practical Implementation: The inclusion of a remote implementation phase is in line with the evolving trend of decentralized healthcare and increases the practical value of the research.

Thank you, for the accurate report of our publication.

Areas for improvement:

1. Long-term follow-up: Although this article refers to safety and satisfaction, longer-term follow-up may improve continued adoption and safety of self-collection devices over time. It may give you some insight about sexuality.

We mentioned these issues in the limitations paragraph.

2. Comparative analysis: Comparative analysis using traditional venipuncture or other self-sampling devices strengthens the paper's contribution by providing context and benchmarks.

Thank you.

3.Variation in pain perception: Examining variation in pain perception across different individuals and age groups can lead to a more nuanced understanding of subjective experience.

We agree.

4.Discussion of Limitations: Although the results are promising, a discussion of the study's limitations, such as potential biases or specific challenges encountered during the study, would add additional depth to the paper.

We added the possibility of selection bias resulting from conducting the adult implementation study in Health care professionals may have overestimated feasibility and satisfaction. We mentioned other challenges.

Conclusion: This article provides valuable insight into the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of the Tasso SST device for self-collection of capillary blood.

This study contributes to the evolution of the landscape of remote monitoring in clinical trials with its integrative design and clear presentation of results.

Implementation of the suggested improvements will further increase the impact and relevance of the article in the broader medical field.

Thank you.

Reviewer #2: The article explores the feasibility of capillary blood self-collection using the Tasso-SST device for remote monitoring. I appreciate the authors' attention to this important topic and their thorough exploration of the impact of sampling sites and topical analgesia on capillary blood volume and pain perception. The study's findings have significant implications for remote monitoring and the use of self-collection devices in healthcare, and the high satisfaction and safety levels reported are promising for the future implementation of such methods. While the a

Attachment

Submitted filename: point by point response _PONE 2024-02-07 (1).dotx

pone.0304155.s007.dotx (27.4KB, dotx)

Decision Letter 1

Ramada Rateb Khasawneh

8 May 2024

Feasibility, acceptability, and safety of a novel device for self-collecting capillary blood samples in clinical trials in the context of the pandemic and beyond

PONE-D-23-28982R1

Dear Dr. Ducharme,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ramada Rateb Khasawneh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

sorry for the delay

the paper met the plos one criteria

it is looks better now ... good luck

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: it is nice that you address all the assign issue, the paper sound better now

Good Luck in your future work

Reviewer #4: In all the manuscripts I have reviewed thus far, this is one of the best written, well thought out and answered all my questions.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Ramada Rateb Khasawneh

17 May 2024

PONE-D-23-28982R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ducharme,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ramada Rateb Khasawneh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Questionnaire ascertaining training appreciation and acceptability in the adult study of the investigational phase.

    Reprinted from [25] under a CC BY license, with permission from Tasso Inc., original copyright [2020].

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304155.s001.docx (14.1KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Questionnaire ascertaining training appreciation and acceptability in the child-parent dyad study of the investigational phase.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304155.s002.docx (14.7KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Patient-reported outcomes.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304155.s003.docx (20.3KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Instructional brochure on the application of TASSO-SST device provided to participants in the investigational phase.

    (PDF)

    pone.0304155.s004.pdf (453.4KB, pdf)
    S2 Fig. Reported pain by puncture site and topical analgesia use in the adult investigational phase.

    (PDF)

    pone.0304155.s005.pdf (327.1KB, pdf)
    S3 Fig. Reported pain by age group in the child-parent dyad investigational phase as above.

    (PDF)

    pone.0304155.s006.pdf (248.4KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: point by point response _PONE 2024-02-07 (1).dotx

    pone.0304155.s007.dotx (27.4KB, dotx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The dissemination of data to the public is precluded due to an omission pertaining to the inclusion of a data-sharing provision within the consent forms, as mandated by the Research Ethics Board. Anonymized Data are available from the CHU Sainte Justine Institutional Data Access / Ethics Committee (contact via ethique.hsj@ssss.gouv.qc.ca) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES