• Eur J Pain · Apr 2021

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Nasopharyngeal swab-induced pain for SARS-CoV-2 screening: A randomised controlled trial of conventional and self-swabbing.

    • Xavier Moisset, Nicolas Gautier, Thomas Godet, Solène Parabère, Bruno Pereira, Estelle Meunier, Laurent Gerbaud, Olivier Lesens, Cécile Henquell, Jean Beytout, and Pierre Clavelou.
    • Université Clermont Auvergne, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
    • Eur J Pain. 2021 Apr 1; 25 (4): 924-929.

    BackgroundMassive screening campaigns for SARS-CoV-2 are currently carried out throughout the world, relying on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) following nasopharyngeal swabbing performed by a healthcare professional. Yet, due to the apprehension of pain induced by nasopharyngeal probing, poor adhesion to those screening campaigns can be observed. To enhance voluntary participation and to avoid unnecessary exposition to SARS-CoV-2, self-swabbing could be proposed. To date, no data have been published concerning pain induced by conventional- or self-swabbing. Thus, the primary objective of the present study was to evaluate pain induced with the conventional swabbing method and compare it to self-swabbing. Secondary objectives focused on swabbing-induced discomfort and acceptability of the two methods.MethodsThe study was conducted in Clermont-Ferrand medical school (France). Overall, 190 students were randomised into two groups and experienced either self- or conventional-swabbing. Each subject had to rate pain, discomfort and acceptability of such swabbing on a 0-10 numeric rating scale.ResultsNo significant difference was found between the two methods. The mean pain level was 2.5 ± 1.9, 28% rating pain as ≥4/10. Discomfort was 4.8 ± 2.2, 66% indicating significant (≥4/10) discomfort. Higher pain and discomfort were associated with female sex. Acceptability was ≥8/10 for 89.0% of the subjects and all would have accepted to undergo a new test with the same technique if necessary.ConclusionBoth conventional and self-swabbing induce low levels of pain for most young healthy volunteers whereas discomfort is very frequent. Nonetheless, both methods are indifferently well-accepted in medical students. Future studies amongst symptomatic subjects are awaited.SignificanceUsing the thinnest available swabs, procedural pain induced by nasopharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 screening is very low for most subjects and should not limit voluntary participation in screening campaigns. Self-swabbing does not lead to more pain or discomfort compared to conventional swabbing, is well-accepted, and could be proposed to optimize screening campaigns, at least in healthcare professionals.© 2021 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.