Skip to content

Self- Versus Conventional-swabbing for COVID-19 Screening (COVISWAB)

Comparison for Sensitivity and Tolerance of Self-swabbing and Conventional Nasopharyngeal Swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 Detection for Pain, Discomfort and Acceptability: a Randomized Controlled Non-inferiority Study

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04831853
Acronym
COVISWAB
Enrollment
400
Registered
2021-04-05
Start date
2021-04-30
Completion date
2021-12-31
Last updated
2021-04-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Covid19

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, Nasopharyngeal swabbing, Self-swabbing, pain, Sensitivity

Brief summary

Self-swabbing requires less personal protective equipment and could allow to test more people and even to do quick self-diagnosis if antigenic tests are available. In a preliminary study on 190 medical students, the investigators have shown that self and conventional swabbing were identically well-accepted with equivalent level of pain and discomfort induced by swabbing. In a sub-group of this sample, the investigators have shown that the quality of the 2 sampling methods were equivalent. The goal of this large study in the general population is to confirm these findings in an adequately powered study. Such results would allow to develop self-swabbing for large screening campaigns and eventually self-diagnosis using antigenic tests.

Detailed description

All consecutive subjects coming to the 2 dedicated centers for COVID-19 screening in Clermont-Ferrand University hospital (one for medical students and one for the general population) will be asked to be included in the present study. They will be randomly assigned to either supervised self-swabbing followed by conventional swabbing led by a healthcare professional or the other way round. All the subjects will have to complete a brief questionnaire including demographical characteristics (age, sex, height, weight, eye color), potential symptoms (asthenia, fever, anosmia…) anticipated pain and discomfort and previous nasopharyngeal swabbing experience. Pain, discomfort and overall acceptability of the procedure will be completed just after completion of the swabbing.

Interventions

OTHERnasopharyngeal swabbing procedure (self swabbing first)

Patient realises the nasal swabbing himself first, then undergoes conventionnal swabbing

OTHERnasopharyngeal swabbing procedure (conventionnal swabbing first)

patient undergoes conventionnal swabbing first then realises the nasal swabbing himself

Sponsors

University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Randomized sequence of supervised self-swabbing and conventional swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 screening

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Any subject coming for nasopharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 screening * Fluent in French (both oral and written) * Able to give an eclaired consent

Exclusion criteria

* Contra-indication to nasopharyngeal swabbing * Refusal to participate * Pregnant women

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Non-inferiority of self-swabbing compared to conventional swabbing concerning diagnosis sensitivity5 minutes after the end of the procedure of nasopharyngeal swabbingassessed using consistency of COVID-19 RT-PCR results for both sampling modalities (Self- swabbing versus conventional-swabbing). If non-inferiority is confirmed on this criterion, pain will be tested.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Correlation between eye color and swabbing-induced pain5 minutes after the end of the procedureEye-color self-reported by the subject on a validated 14 item scale and pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) (0 to 10; higher scores meaning more pain)
Correlation between eye color and swabbing-induced discomfort5 minutes after the end of the procedureEye-color self-reported by the subject on a validated 14 item scale and discomfort score on numeric rating scale (0 to 10; higher scores meaning more discomfort)
Correlation between symptoms (fever, headache, asthenia, anosmia, agueusia, cough, dyspnea, muscle pain, sore throat, diarrhea) and swabbing-induced pain5 minutes after the end of the proceduresymptoms self-reported by the subject and pain score on numeric rating scale (0 to 10; higher scores meaning more pain)
Correlation between body mass index and swabbing-induced pain5 minutes after the end of the proceduresymptoms self-reported by the subject and pain score on numeric rating scale (0 to 10; higher scores meaning more pain)
Correlation between anticipated pain and actual pain5 minutes after the end of the procedureanticipated and actual pain self-reported on numeric rating scale (0 to 10; higher scores meaning more pain)
Correlation between age, sex and swabbing-induced pain5 minutes after the end of the procedureScore on the pain numeric rating scale (0 to 10; higher scores meaning more pain)
Richness assessment for respiratory cellsDay 0Ct value of beta-globin gene
Non-inferiority of self-swabbing compared to conventional swabbing concerning pain5 minutes after the end of the procedure of nasopharyngeal swabbingassessed using a Numerical Rating Scale (0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst imaginable pain). If non-inferiority is confirmed on this criterion, discomfort will be tested
Non-inferiority of self-swabbing compared to conventional swabbing concerning pain discomfort5 minutes after the end of the procedure of nasopharyngeal swabbingassessed using a Numerical Rating Scale (0 indicating no discomfort and 10 the worst imaginable discomfort). If non-inferiority is confirmed on this criterion, acceptability will be tested
Non-inferiority of self-swabbing compared to conventional swabbing concerning acceptability5 minutes after the end of the procedure of nasopharyngeal swabbingassessed using a Numerical Rating Scale (0 indicating that the procedure is not acceptable at all and 10 that the procedure is perfectly well accepted).
Correlation between anticipated discomfort and actual discomfort.5 minutes after the end of the procedureanticipated and actual discomfort self-reported on numeric rating scale (0 to 10; higher scores meaning more pain)

Countries

France

Contacts

Primary ContactLise LACLAUTRE
promo_interne_drci@chu-clermontferrand.fr+33473754963

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026