Development of a standardized, reproducible screening examination for assessment of pelvic floor myofascial pain.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor myofascial pain is common, but physical examination methods to assess pelvic floor muscles are defined poorly. We hypothesized that a simple, transvaginal pelvic floor examination could be developed that would be highly reproducible among providers and would adequately screen for the presence of pelvic floor myofascial pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a simple, reproducible pelvic floor examination to screen for pelvic floor myofascial pain. STUDY DESIGN: A screening examination was developed by Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery subspecialists and women's health physical therapists at our institution and tested in a simulated patient. We recruited 35 new patients who underwent examinations by blinded, paired, independent examiners. Agreement was calculated with the use of percent agreement and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The final examination protocol begins with examination of the following external sites: bilateral sacroiliac joints, medial edge of the anterior superior iliac spine, and cephalad edge of the pubic symphysis (self-reported pain: yes/no). The internal examination follows with palpation of each muscle group in the center of the muscle belly, then along the length of the muscle proceeding counter-clockwise: right obturator internus, right levator ani, left levator ani, left obturator internus (pain on a scale of 0-10). Thirty-five patients were enrolled. Correlation was high at each external (0.80-0.89) and internal point (0.63-0.87; P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Our newly developed, standardized, reproducible examination incorporates assessment of internal and external points to screen for pelvic floor myofascial pain. The examination is straightforward and reproducible and allows for easy use in clinical practice.

The use, quality and effectiveness of pelvic examination in primary care for the detection of gynaecological cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Urgent suspected cancer referral guidelines recommend that women with gynaecological cancer symptoms should have a pelvic examination (PE) prior to referral. We do not know to what extent GPs comply, their competency at PE, or if PE shortens the diagnostic interval. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of the use, quality and effectiveness of PE in primary care for women with suspected gynaecological cancer. METHOD: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Three databases were searched using four terms: PE, primary care, competency and gynaecological cancer. Citation lists of all identified papers were screened independently for eligibility by two reviewers. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Paper quality was assessed using the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Emergent themes and contrasting issues were explored in a narrative ecological synthesis. MAIN FINDINGS: Twenty papers met the inclusion criteria. 52% or less of women with suspicious symptoms had a PE. No papers directly explored GPs' competence at performing PE. Pre-referral PE was associated with reduced diagnostic delay and earlier stage diagnosis. Ecological synthesis demonstrated a complex interplay between patient and practitioner factors and the environment in which examination is performed. Presenting symptoms are commonly misattributed by patients and practitioners resulting in misdiagnosis and lack of PE. CONCLUSION: We do not know if pre-referral PE leads to better outcomes for patients. PE is often not performed for women with gynaecological cancer symptoms, and evidence that it may result in earlier stage of diagnosis is weak. More research is needed.

Committee Opinion No. 703 Summary: Asymptomatic Microscopic Hematuria in Women.

Asymptomatic microscopic hematuria is an important clinical sign of urinary tract malignancy. Asymptomatic microscopic hematuria has been variably defined over the years. In addition, the evidence primarily is based on data from male patients. However, whether the patient is a man or a woman influences the differential diagnosis of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria, and the risk of urinary tract malignancy (bladder, ureter, and kidney) is significantly less in women than in men. Among women, being older than 60 years, having a history of smoking, and having gross hematuria are the strongest predictors of urologic cancer. In low-risk, never-smoking women younger than 50 years without gross hematuria and with fewer than 25 red blood cells per high-power field, the risk of urinary tract malignancy is less than or equal to 0.5%. Furthermore, the evaluation may result in more harm than benefit and is unlikely to be cost effective. Thus, data support changing current hematuria recommendations in this low-risk group. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Urogynecologic Society encourage organizations producing future guidelines on the evaluation of microscopic hematuria to perform sex-specific analysis of the data and produce practical sex-specific recommendations. In the meantime, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Urogynecologic Society recommend that asymptomatic, low-risk, never-smoking women aged 35-50 years undergo evaluation only if they have more than 25 red blood cells per high-power field.

Effect of professional society recommendations on women's desire for a routine pelvic examination.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Physicians strongly recommends against performing pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, nonpregnant women, citing evidence of harm (false-positive testing, unnecessary surgery) and no evidence of benefit. In contrast, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women beginning at age 21 years, citing expert opinion. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate if providing women with professional societies' conflicting statements about pelvic examinations (recommendations and rationales) would influence their desire for a routine examination. STUDY DESIGN: We recruited 452 women ages 21-65 years from 2 women's clinics to participate in a 50-minute face-to-face interview about cervical cancer screening that included a 2-phase study related to pelvic examinations. In the first phase, 262 women were asked about their desire for the examination without being provided information about professional societies' recommendations. In the second phase, 190 women were randomized to review summaries of the American College of Physicians or American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement followed by an interview. RESULTS: First-phase participants served as the referent: 79% (208/262) indicated they would want a routine examination if given a choice. In the second phase, a similar percentage of women randomized to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists summary had this desire (82%: 80/97; adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.70). Women randomized to the American College of Physicians summary, however, were less likely to indicate they would opt for an examination (39%: 36/93; adjusted odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.21). Overall, 94% (179/190) believed the potential benefits and harms should be discussed prior to the examination. CONCLUSION: Providing women with a professional society's recommendation advising against routine pelvic examinations substantially reduced their desire to have one. Educational materials are needed to ensure women's informed preferences and values are reflected in decisions about pelvic examinations.

Committee Opinion No.703: Asymptomatic Microscopic Hematuria in Women.

Asymptomatic microscopic hematuria is an important clinical sign of urinary tract malignancy. Asymptomatic microscopic hematuria has been variably defined over the years. In addition, the evidence primarily is based on data from male patients. However, whether the patient is a man or a woman influences the differential diagnosis of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria, and the risk of urinary tract malignancy (bladder, ureter, and kidney) is significantly less in women than in men. Among women, being older than 60 years, having a history of smoking, and having gross hematuria are the strongest predictors of urologic cancer. In low-risk, never-smoking women younger than 50 years without gross hematuria and with fewer than 25 red blood cells per high-power field, the risk of urinary tract malignancy is less than or equal to 0.5%. Furthermore, the evaluation may result in more harm than benefit and is unlikely to be cost effective. Thus, data support changing current hematuria recommendations in this low-risk group. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Urogynecologic Society encourage organizations producing future guidelines on the evaluation of microscopic hematuria to perform sex-specific analysis of the data and produce practical sex-specific recommendations. In the meantime, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Urogynecologic Society recommend that asymptomatic, low-risk, never-smoking women aged 35-50 years undergo evaluation only if they have more than 25 red blood cells per high-power field.

The Annual Gynecologic Examination Updated for the 21st Century.

The concept of an annual gynecologic screening visit to identify disease at an early stage has long been an established component of women's health care. Women and their health care providers have historically accepted the schedule of an annual gynecologic examination with cervical cancer screening and a pelvic examination. Recently, researchers questioned the value of the annual breast and pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women and re-established the intervals for Pap test screening with the addition of human papillomavirus co-testing to establish cervical cancer risk. The updated well woman examination is now an opportunity to engage women in health education, screening for chronic disease risks, and health care concerns such as depression and violence.

An evidence-based review of the rectovaginal examination during well-woman visits.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Women's health promotion and disease prevention has experienced considerable transformation over the past decade. This includes introduction of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, updated recommendations for mammography screening, Papanicolaou smear and HPV testing, and pelvic examinations. Despite significant literature about these subjects, one area that has not been reviewed is the rectovaginal examination (RVE). This article will examine available evidence regarding the RVE and make evidence-based recommendations that nurse practitioners (NPs) can integrate into practice METHODS: An electronic search was completed using PubMed, CINAHL, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and Cochrane Data Bases. Medical Subject Heading terms and keywords included Physical Examination, Vagina, Rectum, Digital Rectal Examination, Gynecological Examination, and Rectovaginal Examination in combination with Well-Woman, Screening, and Pelvic Examination. CONCLUSIONS: Available literature shows the RVE to have low sensitivity in detecting uterosacral nodularity, rectal compression, cervical involvement of endometrial cancer, and colorectal cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This critical review of available literature found no evidence to support the use of the RVE in well-woman visits. NPs should limit the use of the RVE to patients presenting with rectovaginal or pelvic complaints.

Clinical inquiry: do annual pelvic exams benefit asymptomatic women who receive regular Pap smears?

No evidence exists to support a clinical benefit from annual pelvic examinations for asymptomatic women who receive Pap smears every 3 to 5 years. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee on gynecologic practice recommends annual pelvic exams.

Screening pelvic examination in adult women: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the utility of screening pelvic examination for the detection of pathology in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women. METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic review of the published literature in the English language from 1946 through January 2014 identified using MEDLINE and hand-searching. Evaluated outcomes include morbidity; mortality; and harms, including overdiagnosis, overtreatment, diagnostic procedure-related harms, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using the ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. RECOMMENDATION: ACP recommends against performing screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

The value of expert review in prospective trials of automated assisted screening devices.

Previous prospective studies of automated assisted gynecologic screening devices have used a panel of experts for truth determination. We sought to determine the value of this practice. The relative sensitivity of the devices compared with manual screening was calculated using an expert panel for truth determination and compared using likelihood ratios to the relative sensitivity assuming all abnormal cases were truly abnormal. These results show that expert panel review has no significant effect on relative sensitivity at the threshold of ASCUS+ but may have an effect at HSIL+. Trials without expert consensus review may be compared to those with expert consensus review at the threshold of ASCUS+ but may not be reliable at the threshold of HSIL+ without additional confirmatory data.