RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Effects of speculum lubrication on cervical smears for cervical cancer screening: a double blind randomized clinical trial
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.09.17.23295694
DO 10.1101/2023.09.17.23295694
A1 Chito P. Ilika
A1 George U. Eleje
A1 Michael E. Chiemeka
A1 Frances N. Ilika
A1 Joseph I. Ikechebelu
A1 Valentine C. Ilika
A1 Emmanuel O. Ugwu
A1 Ifeanyichukwu J. Ofor
A1 Onyecherelam M. Ogelle
A1 Osita S. Umeononihu
A1 Johnbosco E. Mamah
A1 Chinedu L. Olisa
A1 Chijioke O. Ezeigwe
A1 Malarchy E. Nwankwo
A1 Chukwuemeka J. Ofojebe
A1 Chidinma C. Okafor
A1 Onyeka C. Ekwebene
A1 Obinna K. Nnabuchi
A1 Chigozie G. Okafor
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/18/2023.09.17.23295694.abstract
AB Background Speculum lubrication may help to reduce the pain experienced during Pap-smears collection and hence increase uptake of cervical cancer screening and repeat testing but there are fears of its interference with cytological results.Aim To determine and compare adequacy of cervical cytology smears and mean pain scores of women undergoing cervical cancer screening with or without speculum lubrication.Methods This was a randomized controlled study of 132 women having cervical cancer screening at a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. Sixty-six participants each were randomly assigned to the ‘Gel’ and ‘No Gel’ groups respectively. Pap-smears were collected from each participant with lubricated speculum (‘Gel group’) or non-lubricated speculum (‘No Gel group’). The primary outcome measures were; the proportion of women with unsatisfactory cervical cytology smears and the mean numeric rating scale pain scores while the secondary outcome measures were the proportion of women that are willing to come for repeat testing and the cytological diagnosis of Pap-smear results.Results The baseline socio-demographic variables were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in the proportion of unsatisfactory cervical smear results between the two groups (13.6% vs. 21.2% p = 0.359). However, the mean pain scores were significantly lower in the gel group than in the no gel group (45.04 vs 87.96; p<0.001). An equal proportion of the participants in each group (90.9% vs. 90.9%; p>0.999) were willing to come for repeat cervical smears in the future.Conclusion Speculum lubrication did not affect the adequacy of cervical-smears but significantly reduced the pain experienced during Pap-smear collection. Also, it did not significantly affect willingness to come for repeat cervical smears in the future.The Trial was registered with Pan-African Clinical Trial Registry with unique identification/registration no: PACTR2020077533364675.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThe Trial was registered with Pan-African-Clinical-Trial-Registry on 08/07/2020 with unique identification/registration-no: PACTR2020077533364675.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics committee of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Nnewi (NAUTH), Nnewi, Nigeria on 24th September 2019 with the approval reference number: NAUTH /CS/66/VOL.12/098/2019/040. The study was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles of clinical research involving human participants according to Helsinki declarationsI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableData is available upon request from the authors