New study says single finger-prick tests aren’t necessarily accurate

The article actual says that anything less than 4 drops is inaccurate for measuring haemoglobin.<p>If you can’t get an accurate result measuring the most common protein in blood then the concept is not going to go far unless you can get a few ex-generals and war criminals on your board of directors.

This is no surprise whatsoever to anyone (e.g., diabetics) who uses glucose test strips. Small sample + cheap small battery-powered measuring device = high variation.<p>Is it good science? The study had a mere 11 &quot;donors&quot;! I know Rice is a small school, but there are plenty of people around the university to volunteer. Its within throwing distance of Houston&#x27;s Medical Center!

Part of could be that it is easier to fuck up a finger prick blood draw and cause inaccurate results. Improper cleaning [1], not getting the blood out in the right way, or even certain patient conditions. Less likely to mess up (in a way that causes test inaccuracy) when you drain a whole vial out of their arm.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC1238762&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;brjgenprac00036-0046a.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC1238762&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;brjg...</a>

Good. Maybe they should consider getting blood from somewhere within the 99% of the body&#x27;s surface area that doesn&#x27;t have as many nerves as the tips of the fingers.

I thought this has been known for quite a while. I keep seeing articles and comments by people who have worked in this field for years saying finger-prick blood is unreliable. I&#x27;m unclear why another study is needed.

Is it just me, or is &quot;not necessarily accurate&quot; just weasel words for &quot;not accurate&quot;?<p>Either something is accurate, or it is not.