BACKGROUND: Massive 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. METHODS: The study was conducted in Clermont-Ferrand medical school (France). Overall, 190 students were randomised into 2 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. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the two methods. 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. CONCLUSION: Both 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 among symptomatic subjects are awaited. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Massive 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. METHODS: The study was conducted in Clermont-Ferrand medical school (France). Overall, 190 students were randomised into 2 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. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the two methods. 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. CONCLUSION: Both 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 among symptomatic subjects are awaited. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Authors: Cícero C Pola; Sonal V Rangnekar; Robert Sheets; Beata M Szydlowska; Julia R Downing; Kshama W Parate; Shay G Wallace; Daphne Tsai; Mark C Hersam; Carmen L Gomes; Jonathan C Claussen Journal: 2d Mater Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 6.861
Authors: François Gagnon; Maala Bhatt; Roger Zemek; Richard J Webster; Stephanie Johnson-Obaseki; Stuart Harman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Chris Denning; Andrew V Benest; Claire Seedhouse; Harry H Jenkins; Ana A Tellechea Lopez; Francesco Saverio Tarantini; Hannah Tomlin; Danielle Scales; I-Ning Lee; Siyu Wu; Ralph Hyde; Katarzyna Lis-Slimak; Timothy Byaruhanga; Jamie L Thompson; Sara Pijuan-Galito; Lara Doolan; Kazuyo Kaneko; Penny Gwynne; Caroline Reffin; Emily Park; Jayasree Dey; Jack Hill; Asta Arendt-Tranholm; Amy Stroud; Moira Petrie Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Michael R Sherby; Luther G Kalb; Ryan J Coller; Gregory P DeMuri; Sabrina Butteris; John J Foxe; Martin S Zand; Edward G Freedman; Stephen Dewhurst; Jason G Newland; Christina A Gurnett Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 9.703
Authors: Yang De Marinis; Anne-Katrine Pesola; Anna Söderlund Strand; Astrid Norman; Gustav Pernow; Markus Aldén; Runtao Yang; Magnus Rasmussen Journal: Infect Ecol Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-29
Authors: Hannah M Thomas; Marianne J Mullane; Sherlynn Ang; Tina Barrow; Adele Leahy; Alexandra Whelan; Karen Lombardi; Matthew Cooper; Paul G Stevenson; Leanne Lester; Andrea Padley; Lynn Sprigg; David Speers; Adam J Merritt; Juli Coffin; Donna Cross; Peter Gething; Asha C Bowen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Chiara E Ghezzi; Devon R Hartigan; Justin P Hardick; Rebecca Gore; Miryam Adelfio; Anyelo R Diaz; Pamela D McGuinness; Matthew L Robinson; Bryan O Buchholz; Yukari C Manabe Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-01-15