Deffieux Xavier, Rousset-Jablonski Christine, Gantois Adrien, Brillac Thierry, Maruani Julia, Maitrot-Mantelet Lorraine, Mignot Stéphanie, Gaucher Laurent, Athiel Yoann, Baffet Hortense, Bailleul Alexandre, Bernard Valérie, Bourdon Mathilde, Cardaillac Claire, Carneiro Yaritza, Chariot Patrick, Corroenne Romain, Dabi Yohann, Dahlem Laurence, Frank Sophie, Freyens Anne, Grouthier Virginie, Hernandez Isabelle, Iraola Elisabeth, Lambert Marie, Lauchet Nadege, Legendre Guillaume, Le Lous Maela, Louis-Vahdat Christine, Martinat Sainte-Beuve Anne, Masson Marine, Matteo Caroline, Pinton Anne, Sabbagh Emmanuelle, Sallee Camille, Thubert Thibault, Heron Isabelle, Pizzoferrato Anne-Cécile, Artzner France, Tavenet Arounie, Le Ray Camille, Fauconnier Arnaud
Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Antoine-Béclère, université Paris-Saclay, AP-HP, 92140 Clamart, France.
Département de chirurgie, Centre Léon Bérard, 28, rue Laënnec, 69008 Lyon, France; Inserm U1290, Research on Healthcare Performance (RESHAPE), université Claude-Bernard Lyon 1, 69008 Lyon, France; Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France.
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2023 Jun;51(6):297-330. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2023.04.001. Epub 2023 May 22.
To provide guidelines for the pelvic clinical exam in gynecology and obstetrics.
A multidisciplinary experts consensus committee of 45 experts was formed, including representatives of patients' associations and users of the health system. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any funding. The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized.
The committee studied 40 questions within 4 fields for symptomatic or asymptomatic women (emergency conditions, gynecological consultation, gynecological diseases, obstetrics, and pregnancy). Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology.
The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 27 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 17 present a strong agreement, 7 a weak agreement and 3 an expert consensus agreement. Thirteen questions resulted in an absence of recommendation due to lack of evidence in the literature.
The need to perform clinical examination in gynecological and obstetrics patients was specified in 27 pre-defined situations based on scientific evidence. More research is required to investigate the benefit in other cases.
为妇产科盆腔临床检查提供指南。
成立了一个由45名专家组成的多学科专家共识委员会,其中包括患者协会代表和卫生系统使用者。整个指南制定过程独立于任何资金支持进行。建议作者遵循推荐评估、制定与评价分级(GRADE®)系统的规则,以指导证据质量评估。强调了在低质量证据情况下做出强烈推荐的潜在弊端。
委员会研究了针对有症状或无症状女性的4个领域(紧急情况、妇科咨询、妇科疾病、产科和妊娠)中的40个问题。每个问题均采用PICO(患者、干预措施、对照、结局)格式进行表述,并生成了证据概要。根据GRADE®方法进行了文献综述并提出了建议。
专家的综合工作以及GRADE方法的应用产生了27条建议。在正式提出的建议中,17条达成了强烈共识,7条达成了微弱共识,3条达成了专家共识。由于文献中缺乏证据,13个问题未给出建议。
基于科学证据,在27种预先定义的情况下明确了对妇产科患者进行临床检查的必要性。在其他情况下,还需要更多研究来探究其益处。