Xu Su1, Bradley F Carlson2, Xiexiu Wang1, Xiaoyan Li1, Ying Zhang1, JoLynn P Montgomery2, Yaxing Ding1, Abram L Wagner2, Brenda Gillespie3, Matthew L Boulton4. 1. Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tianjin 300011, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan, MI 48109, USA. Electronic address: mboulton@umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of dried blood spots (DBS) offers advantages over serum samples in studies conducted in resource-poor settings. The aim of this study was to compare the number of adequate spots collected across different demographic groups. METHODS: Five DBS were collected from 3316 individuals aged 0-49 years in Tianjin, China for a measles antibody study; DBS were rated "adequate" or "inadequate." Linear regression, with the number of adequate DBS on a card as the outcome variable, was used to test for predictors of DBS adequacy. RESULTS: There were 0 adequate DBS for 23% of participants and 5 adequate DBS for 24%. Mean number of adequate DBS was 1.68 in infants (<12 months), 2.57 (1-9 years), 3.49 (10-29 years), 3.08 (30-49 years). The number of adequate DBS increased over the study; the mean number of adequate DBS for the five years 2011-2015 were 1.21, 2.52, 3.40, 2.22, and 3.62, respectively. DBS quality was not related to measles IgG antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: DBS are an alternative for adults and children but pose challenges in infants, and improve with experience. In a resource-limited environment or in a scenario where more invasive techniques like venipuncture may be less accepted by the study population, DBS can be the preferred technique to efficiently obtain serum specimens for analyte testing.
BACKGROUND: Use of dried blood spots (DBS) offers advantages over serum samples in studies conducted in resource-poor settings. The aim of this study was to compare the number of adequate spots collected across different demographic groups. METHODS: Five DBS were collected from 3316 individuals aged 0-49 years in Tianjin, China for a measles antibody study; DBS were rated "adequate" or "inadequate." Linear regression, with the number of adequate DBS on a card as the outcome variable, was used to test for predictors of DBS adequacy. RESULTS: There were 0 adequate DBS for 23% of participants and 5 adequate DBS for 24%. Mean number of adequate DBS was 1.68 in infants (<12 months), 2.57 (1-9 years), 3.49 (10-29 years), 3.08 (30-49 years). The number of adequate DBS increased over the study; the mean number of adequate DBS for the five years 2011-2015 were 1.21, 2.52, 3.40, 2.22, and 3.62, respectively. DBS quality was not related to measles IgG antibodies. CONCLUSIONS:DBS are an alternative for adults and children but pose challenges in infants, and improve with experience. In a resource-limited environment or in a scenario where more invasive techniques like venipuncture may be less accepted by the study population, DBS can be the preferred technique to efficiently obtain serum specimens for analyte testing.
Authors: Y Zhang; A L Wagner; X Wang; B F Carlson; Y Ding; J P Montgomery; B W Gillespie; M L Boulton Journal: Public Health Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 2.427
Authors: Matthew L Boulton; Xiexiu Wang; Ying Zhang; JoLynn P Montgomery; Abram L Wagner; Bradley F Carlson; Yaxing Ding; Xiaoyan Li; Brenda Gillespie; Xu Su Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Kelli S Hall; Shelby T Rentmeester; Yuan Zhao; Allison N Hankus; Yidan Pei; Halley Em Riley; Candace McCloud; Bradley D Pearce Journal: Front Womens Health Date: 2020-02-03
Authors: A Rodríguez-Galet; M Rubio-Garrido; A Valadés-Alcaraz; M Rodríguez-Domínguez; J C Galán; A Ndarabu; G Reina; A Holguín Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Emma C Tallantyre; Nicola Vickaryous; Stephen Jolles; Ruth Dobson; Valerie Anderson; Aliye Nazli Asardag; David Baker; Jonathan Bestwick; Kath Bramhall; Randy Chance; Nikos Evangelou; Katila George; Gavin Giovannoni; Andrew Godkin; Leanne Grant; Katharine E Harding; Aimee Hibbert; Gillian Ingram; Meleri Jones; Angray S Kang; Samantha Loveless; Stuart J Moat; Neil P Robertson; Klaus Schmierer; Martin J Scurr; Sita Navin Shah; Jessica Simmons; Matthew Upcott; Mark Willis Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Brian Reinhardt; Robert Taylor; Colin Dawkins; Taylor Banks; Nora Watson; Appavu Sundaram; Daniel Ewing; Janine Ruth Danko Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christine Prosperi; Ojas Kaduskar; Gajanan N Sapkal; Kyla Hayford; Vaishali Bhatt; Alvira Z Hasan; Jeromie W Vivian Thangaraj; Muthusamy S Kumar; R Sabarinathan; Saravana Kumar; Augustine Duraiswamy; Gururaj Rao Deshpande; Ullas Padinjaremattathil Thankappan; Sanjay L Chauhan; Ragini N Kulkarni; Avi Kumar Bansal; Itta K Chaaithanya; Neha R Salvi; Sandeep Sharma; William J Moss; Lucky Sangal; Nivedita Gupta; Manoj V Murherkar; Sanjay M Mehendale Journal: mSphere Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.389