Université Clermont Auvergne, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Eur J Pain. 2021 Apr;25(4):924-929. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1722. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
目前,全世界正在进行大规模的 SARS-CoV-2 筛查活动,依靠专业医疗人员进行鼻咽拭子后进行逆转录-聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)。然而,由于对鼻咽探查引起的疼痛的担忧,这些筛查活动的参与率可能较低。为了提高自愿参与度,并避免不必要地暴露于 SARS-CoV-2 之下,可以采用自我拭子采样的方法。迄今为止,尚无关于常规或自我拭子采样引起的疼痛的数据发表。因此,本研究的主要目的是评估常规拭子采样方法引起的疼痛,并将其与自我拭子采样进行比较。次要目标集中在两种方法引起的不适和可接受性上。
该研究在法国克莱蒙费朗医学院进行。共有 190 名学生被随机分为两组,分别接受自我拭子或常规拭子采样。每位受试者都必须使用 0-10 数字评分量表来评估两种采样方法引起的疼痛、不适和可接受性。
两种方法之间没有显著差异。平均疼痛水平为 2.5±1.9,28%的受试者报告疼痛≥4/10。不适感为 4.8±2.2,66%的受试者表示有明显(≥4/10)不适感。女性的疼痛和不适感更高。89.0%的受试者对可接受性的评价≥8/10,如果有必要,他们都愿意接受相同技术的新测试。
对于大多数年轻健康的志愿者来说,常规和自我拭子采样引起的疼痛水平都较低,而不适感则非常常见。然而,这两种方法在医学生中都得到了同等程度的认可。期待在有症状的受试者中进行进一步的研究。
使用最薄的拭子,SARS-CoV-2 筛查时鼻咽拭子引起的操作疼痛对于大多数受试者来说非常低,不应该限制自愿参与筛查活动。与常规拭子采样相比,自我拭子采样不会引起更多的疼痛或不适,且被广泛接受,至少在医疗保健专业人员中,可以被提议来优化筛查活动。