You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Evidence is lacking to support pelvic examinations as a screening tool for non-cervical cancers or other conditions

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Diagnosis
Systematic review
Evidence is lacking to support pelvic examinations as a screening tool for non-cervical cancers or other conditions
  1. Mona Saraiya
  1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  1. Correspondence to : Dr Mona Saraiya, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, Mailstop F76, Atlanta GA 30341, USA; msaraiya{at}cdc.gov

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2014-110081

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Bloomfield HE, Olson A, Greer N, et al. Screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, average-risk adult women: an evidence report for a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:46–53.

    Context

    The pelvic examination (PE) includes a visual examination of external genitalia, the speculum examination, and the bimanual examination (BME).1 Coupled with the Pap test, the PE is considered part of the annual well-woman examination. This systematic review evaluated the evidence for the PE to detect non-cervical cancers and benign conditions such as fibroids. This evidence review approach differs from those conducted by the US Preventive Services Task Force, which considers a particular examination or test for the prevention of a specific disease.2

    Methods

    This systematic review assessed accuracy, benefits and harms of PE among asymptomatic, non-pregnant …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.