Evans Devon, Goldstein Susan, Loewy Amanda, Altman Alon D
Winnipeg, MB (SOGC).
Toronto, ON (SOGC/CFPC).
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019 Aug;41(8):1221-1234. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.12.007.
The primary objective of this document is to clarify the indications for pelvic examination.
Physicians, including gynaecologists, obstetricians, family physicians, and emergency physicians; nurses, including registered nurses and nurse practitioners; midwives, including midwives in clinical practice and midwifery trainees; medical trainees, including medical students, residents, and fellows; and all other health care providers who care for women.
This publication provides evidence and expert-based recommendations for pelvic examination in adult women (18 years and older) both with and without gynaecologic symptoms.
This publication clarifies indications for pelvic examination in the context of recently published national task force statements on the utility of pelvic examination. We aim to ensure that women who have clinical indications for examination receive proper clinical investigation with minimal delays to diagnosis of treatable disease.
For this committee opinion, relevant studies were identified in PubMed and Medline using the following terms, either alone or in combination, with the search limited to English-language materials and human subjects and no publication date cut-off: pelvic examination, bimanual examination, speculum examination, rectovaginal examination, ovarian cancer screening, asymptomatic women, periodic health examination. The search was performed in May and June 2018. Relevant evidence was selected for inclusion in the following order: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines and national task force statements, randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, observational studies, non-systematic reviews, case series, and reports. Additional articles were identified by cross-referencing the identified publications. A formal systematic review was not conducted for all topics discussed due to the paucity of evidence and number of different subtopics discussed. The total number of publications included in this review was 66.
The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the principal authors. The Boards of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada (GOC), the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC), and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) approved the final draft for publication after review by their respective representative committees. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology framework (Tables 1 and 2). The Summary of Findings is available upon request.
BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: This committee opinion should benefit all women with and without gynaecologic symptoms who present to gynaecologists and primary care practitioners. It will help guide practitioners in identifying indications for pelvic examination to reduce unnecessary examination with related potential harm while also increasing indicated examination to reduce delays in diagnosis of treatable gynaecologic conditions.
This SOGC Committee Opinion will be automatically reviewed 5 years after publication to determine if all or part of the committee opinion should be updated. However, this review may be performed earlier if new high-impact research is published in the interim.
Symptomatic Women. 1) Any woman with gynaecologic complaints including, but not limited to, vulvar complaints, vaginal discharge, abnormal premenopausal bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, infertility, pelvic organ prolapse symptoms, urinary incontinence, new and unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal pain, increased abdominal size/bloating, and difficulty eating/early satiety), pelvic pain, or dyspareunia should undergo appropriate components of the pelvic examination to identify benign or malignant disease (strong, low). 2) Health care providers may consider discussing the risks and benefits of performing a baseline pelvic examination including visual and bimanual examination prior to prescribing hormonal replacement therapy/menopausal hormonal treatment (weak, very low). Asymptomatic Women. 3) Health care practitioners should perform cervical cytology cancer screening in accordance with provincial/territorial guidelines (strong, strong). 4) There is insufficient evidence to guide recommendations on screening pelvic examination for noncervical gynaecologic malignancy or any benign gynaecologic disease in healthy, asymptomatic women with average risk of malignancy. However, health care practitioners may consider performing a screening pelvic examination including visual, speculum, and bimanual examinations in concert with cervical cytology sampling intervals as recommended by provincial/territorial guidelines. This practice may identify clinically important benign or malignant disease not recognized or reported by the patient (weak, very low). 5) In women over age 70 who no longer require screening with cervical cytology, health care practitioners should consider continuing periodic screening of asymptomatic women for vulvar disease with inspection of the vulva, perineum, and anus to identify benign or malignant disease unrecognized by this population. There is insufficient evidence to guide recommendations on frequency of this examination (weak, low). 6) Women with a personal history of gynaecologic malignancy, a genetic diagnosis that increases gynaecologic malignancy risk, or a history of in utero diethylstilbestrol exposure may benefit from more frequent screening pelvic examinations to identify early primary, recurrent, or metastatic malignancy in the absence of symptoms. Because there is inadequate evidence to define these screening intervals, they should be in accordance with provincial/territorial guidelines and expert opinion (weak, very low). 7. Non-invasive and self-collection screening options for chlamydia and gonorrhea are acceptable in asymptomatic women, but pelvic examination, including visual inspection, speculum examination, and bimanual examination, is required in the presence of symptoms to rule out pelvic inflammatory disease or tubo-ovarian abscess (strong, low). 8) No pelvic examination is required prior to prescription of hormonal contraception in a healthy woman with no gynaecologic symptoms (strong, low).
本文档的主要目的是明确盆腔检查的适应证。
医生,包括妇科医生、产科医生、家庭医生和急诊医生;护士,包括注册护士和执业护士;助产士,包括临床助产士和助产专业实习生;医学实习生,包括医学生、住院医师和研究员;以及所有其他护理女性的医疗保健提供者。
本出版物为成年女性(18岁及以上)无论有无妇科症状的盆腔检查提供基于证据和专家意见的建议。
本出版物在最近发表的关于盆腔检查效用的国家特别工作组声明的背景下,明确了盆腔检查的适应证。我们旨在确保有临床检查适应证的女性能够接受适当的临床检查,尽量减少诊断可治疗疾病的延误。
对于本委员会意见,在PubMed和Medline中使用以下术语单独或组合检索相关研究,检索限于英文材料和人类受试者,不设出版日期限制:盆腔检查、双合诊检查、窥器检查、直肠阴道检查、卵巢癌筛查、无症状女性、定期健康检查。检索于2018年5月和6月进行。相关证据按以下顺序选择纳入:荟萃分析、系统评价、指南和国家特别工作组声明、随机对照试验、前瞻性队列研究、观察性研究、非系统评价、病例系列和报告。通过对已识别出版物的交叉引用确定其他文章。由于证据不足和讨论的不同子主题数量众多,未对所有讨论的主题进行正式的系统评价。本综述纳入的出版物总数为66篇。
内容和建议由主要作者起草并达成一致。加拿大妇科肿瘤学会(GOC)、加拿大家庭医生学院(CFPC)和加拿大妇产科学会(SOGC)的委员会在各自代表委员会审查后批准了最终出版草案。使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)方法框架中描述的标准对证据质量进行评级(表1和表2)。如有需要,可提供结果总结。
益处、危害和成本:本委员会意见应使所有有或无妇科症状并就诊于妇科医生和初级保健医生的女性受益。它将有助于指导从业者确定盆腔检查的适应证,以减少不必要的检查及其相关潜在危害,同时增加必要的检查以减少可治疗妇科疾病诊断的延误。
本SOGC委员会意见将在出版后5年自动审查,以确定委员会意见的全部或部分是否应更新。然而,如果在此期间发表了新的高影响力研究,审查可能会提前进行。
有症状女性。1)任何有妇科主诉的女性,包括但不限于外阴主诉、阴道分泌物异常、绝经前异常出血、绝经后出血、不孕、盆腔器官脱垂症状、尿失禁、新出现且无法解释的胃肠道症状(腹痛、腹部增大/腹胀、进食困难/早饱)、盆腔疼痛或性交困难,均应接受盆腔检查的适当组成部分,以识别良性或恶性疾病(强烈推荐,低质量证据)。2)医疗保健提供者在开具激素替代疗法/绝经激素治疗之前,可考虑讨论进行包括视诊和双合诊检查在内的基线盆腔检查的风险和益处(弱推荐,极低质量证据)。无症状女性。3)医疗保健从业者应按照省级/地区指南进行宫颈细胞学癌症筛查(强烈推荐,高质量证据)。4)对于恶性肿瘤平均风险的健康无症状女性,在筛查非宫颈妇科恶性肿瘤或任何良性妇科疾病的盆腔检查方面,证据不足以指导相关建议。然而,医疗保健从业者可考虑按照省级/地区指南推荐的宫颈细胞学采样间隔,同时进行包括视诊(窥器检查和双合诊检查)的筛查盆腔检查。这种做法可能会发现患者未识别或未报告的具有临床重要性的良性或恶性疾病(弱推荐,极低质量证据)。5)对于70岁以上不再需要进行宫颈细胞学筛查的女性,医疗保健从业者应考虑继续对无症状女性进行定期的外阴疾病筛查,检查外阴、会阴和肛门,以识别该人群未识别的良性或恶性疾病。关于该检查频率的建议,证据不足(弱推荐,低质量证据)。6)有妇科恶性肿瘤个人史以及基因诊断增加妇科恶性肿瘤风险或有宫内己烯雌酚暴露史的女性,可能受益于更频繁的筛查盆腔检查,以在无症状时识别早期原发性、复发性或转移性恶性肿瘤。由于定义这些筛查间隔的证据不足,应按照省级/地区指南和专家意见进行(弱推荐,极低质量证据)。7. 对于无症状女性,衣原体和淋病的非侵入性和自我采集筛查方法是可接受的,但有症状时需要进行盆腔检查,包括视诊、窥器检查和双合诊检查,以排除盆腔炎或输卵管卵巢脓肿(强烈推荐,低质量证据)。8)对于没有妇科症状的健康女性,在开具激素避孕药物之前无需进行盆腔检查(强烈推荐,低质量证据)。