The Use of Residual Blood Specimens in Seroprevalence Studies for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: A Scoping Review

• Published in: Vaccines
• Main Authors: Monica Pilewskie, Christine Prosperi, Abigail Bernasconi, Ignacio Esteban, Lori Niehaus, Connor Ross, Andrea C. Carcelen, William J. Moss, Amy K. Winter
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2025-03-01
• Subjects: vaccine-preventable diseases; serology; seroprevalence; blood; residual
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/13/3/321

<i>Background</i>: Residual blood specimens offer a cost- and time-efficient alternative for conducting serological surveys. However, their use is often criticized due to potential issues with the representativeness of the target population and/or limited availability of associated metadata. We conducted a scoping review to examine where, when, how, and why residual blood specimens have been used in serological surveys for vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and how potential selection biases are addressed. <i>Methods</i>: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and identified relevant papers published in 1990–2022. <i>Results</i>: A total of 601 articles met the inclusion criteria after title, abstract screening, and full-text review. The most studied VPDs using residual blood specimens were COVID-19 (27%), hepatitis E (16%), hepatitis B (10%), influenza (9%), HPV (7%), and measles (7%). Residual blood specimens were primarily sourced from diagnostic specimens (61%) or blood and plasma donations (37%). Almost all articles used specimens linked to basic demographic data (e.g., age and sex), with 47% having access to extended demographic data (e.g., geographic location). Common strategies to address potential biases included comparing results with published estimates (78%) and performing stratified analyses (71%). <i>Conclusions</i>: Residual blood specimens are widely used in seroprevalence studies, particularly during emerging disease outbreaks when rapid estimates are critical. However, this review highlighted inconsistencies in how researchers analyze and report the use of residual specimens. We propose a set of recommendations to improve the analysis, reporting, and ethical considerations of serological surveys using residual specimens.