Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Apr;25(4):924-929.
doi: 10.1002/ejp.1722. Epub 2021 Jan 19.

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

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Xavier Moisset et al. Eur J Pain. 2021 Apr.

Abstract

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 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.

Results: No 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.

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 amongst symptomatic subjects are awaited.

Significance: Using 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Birnie, K. A., Noel, M., Chambers, C. T., Uman, L. S., & Parker, J. A. (2018). Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 10, CD005179. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005179.pub4
    1. Boerner, K. E., Birnie, K. A., Caes, L., Schinkel, M., & Chambers, C. T. (2014). Sex differences in experimental pain among healthy children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain, 155, 983-993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2014.01.031
    1. Coughtrie, A. L., Whittaker, R. N., Begum, N., Anderson, R., Tuck, A., Faust, S. N., Jefferies, J. M., Yuen, H. M., Roderick, P. J., Mullee, M. A., Moore, M. V., & Clarke, S. C. (2014). Evaluation of swabbing methods for estimating the prevalence of bacterial carriage in the upper respiratory tract: A cross sectional study. British Medical Journal Open, 4, e005341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005341
    1. Demmer, R. T., Ulrich, A., Wiggen, T., Strickland, A., Naumchik, B., Kulasingam, S., Stovitz, S. D., Marotz, C., Belda-Ferre, P., Humphrey, G., De Hoff, P., Laurent, L., Kline, S., & Knight, R. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 infection among symptom-free healthcare workers. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166066
    1. Fillingim, R. B., King, C. D., Ribeiro-Dasilva, M. C., Rahim-Williams, B., & Riley, J. L. (2009). Sex, gender, and pain: A review of recent clinical and experimental findings. The Journal of Pain, 10, 447-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources