TY - JOUR
T1 - Screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, average-risk adult women
T2 - An evidence report for a clinical practice guideline from the American college of physicians
AU - Bloomfield, Hanna E.
AU - Olson, Andrew
AU - Greer, Nancy
AU - Cantor, Amy
AU - MacDonald, Roderick
AU - Rutks, Indulis
AU - Wilt, Timothy J.
PY - 2014/7/1
Y1 - 2014/7/1
N2 - Background: Pelvic examination is often included in well-woman visits even when cervical cancer screening is not required. Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, benefits, and harms of pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, average-risk adult women. Cervical cancer screening was not included. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through January 2014 and reference lists from identified studies. Study Selection: 52 English-language studies, 32 of which included primary data. Data Extraction: Data were extracted on study and sample characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Quality of the diagnostic accuracy studies was evaluated using a published instrument, and quality of the survey studies was evaluated with metrics assessing population representativeness, instrument development, and response rates. Data Synthesis: The positive predictive value of pelvic examination for detecting ovarian cancer was less than 4% in the 2 studies that reported this metric. No studies that investigated the morbidity or mortality benefits of screening pelvic examination for any condition were identified. The percentage of women reporting pelvic examination-related pain or discomfort ranged from 11% to 60% (median, 35%; 8 studies [n = 4576]). Corresponding figures for fear, embarrassment, or anxiety ranged from 10% to 80% (median, 34%; 7 studies [n = 10 702]). Limitation: Only English-language publications were included; the evidence on diagnostic accuracy, morbidity, and mortality was scant; and the studies reporting harms were generally low quality. Conclusion: No data supporting the use of pelvic examination in asymptomatic, average-risk women were found. Low-quality data suggest that pelvic examinations may cause pain, discomfort, fear, anxiety, or embarrassment in about 30% of women.
AB - Background: Pelvic examination is often included in well-woman visits even when cervical cancer screening is not required. Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, benefits, and harms of pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, average-risk adult women. Cervical cancer screening was not included. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through January 2014 and reference lists from identified studies. Study Selection: 52 English-language studies, 32 of which included primary data. Data Extraction: Data were extracted on study and sample characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Quality of the diagnostic accuracy studies was evaluated using a published instrument, and quality of the survey studies was evaluated with metrics assessing population representativeness, instrument development, and response rates. Data Synthesis: The positive predictive value of pelvic examination for detecting ovarian cancer was less than 4% in the 2 studies that reported this metric. No studies that investigated the morbidity or mortality benefits of screening pelvic examination for any condition were identified. The percentage of women reporting pelvic examination-related pain or discomfort ranged from 11% to 60% (median, 35%; 8 studies [n = 4576]). Corresponding figures for fear, embarrassment, or anxiety ranged from 10% to 80% (median, 34%; 7 studies [n = 10 702]). Limitation: Only English-language publications were included; the evidence on diagnostic accuracy, morbidity, and mortality was scant; and the studies reporting harms were generally low quality. Conclusion: No data supporting the use of pelvic examination in asymptomatic, average-risk women were found. Low-quality data suggest that pelvic examinations may cause pain, discomfort, fear, anxiety, or embarrassment in about 30% of women.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903574085&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903574085&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.7326/M13-2881
DO - 10.7326/M13-2881
M3 - Review article
C2 - 24979449
AN - SCOPUS:84903574085
SN - 0003-4819
VL - 161
SP - 46
EP - 53
JO - Annals of Internal Medicine
JF - Annals of Internal Medicine
IS - 1
ER -