User login
Current evidence fails to support or reject routine screening pelvic exams for asymptomatic, low-risk, nonpregnant adult women, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded after reviewing the evidence on the accuracy, benefits, and potential harms.
The USPSTF issued an inconclusive “I” statement that was published online March 7 (JAMA. 2017;317[9]:947-53).
Researchers found no data comparing the impact of no screening versus screening pelvic examinations on patient health outcomes including reducing all-cause mortality, reducing cancer-specific and disease-specific morbidity and mortality, and improving quality of life.
“No direct evidence was identified for overall benefits and harms of the pelvic examination as a one-time or periodic screening test,” Janelle M. Guirguis-Blake, MD, of the University of Washington, Tacoma, and colleagues wrote in the accompanying evidence report (JAMA. 2017;317[9]:954-66). The review comprised nine studies: one addressing the harms of screening and eight addressing both harms and accuracy.
Although screening pelvic exams may identify serious conditions as well as benign ones, the potential remains for false-positive and false-negative results that might lead to invasive surgery and unnecessary testing and procedures, the researchers noted. However, the recommendations do not apply to certain conditions for which screening is already recommended, including cervical cancer (via Pap smear), gonorrhea, and chlamydia.
The recommendations are primarily a call for more research rather than a clear guide for clinicians, according to the USPSTF. The research gaps include studies on the physical and psychological harms of pelvic screening for asymptomatic women in primary care; the ability of screening to detect conditions beyond ovarian cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis, and trichomoniasis; and the impact of screening on a variety of health outcomes, including quality of life.
Given the inadequate evidence to recommend for or against screening, the USPSTF cited the recommendations of other organizations. Both the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recommend against performing screening pelvic exams in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends annual pelvic exams for women 21 years and older but acknowledges a lack of evidence and has said it should be a shared decision between the patient and clinician.
The USPSTF members reported having no relevant financial conflicts.
The USPSTF task force finding of insufficient evidence to support or refute screening pelvic exams conflicts with the views of other organizations, George F. Sawaya, MD, wrote in an editorial (JAMA 2017 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0271).
The American College of Physicians currently recommends against routine screening in asymptomatic, nonpregnant women, while the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends in favor of an annual pelvic exam “based on expert opinion” despite the lack of evidence, he said.
“The USPSTF believes that in the setting of an ‘I’ statement, clinicians should be forthright with patients about the uncertainty concerning the balance of benefits and harms,” Dr. Sawaya wrote.
“But perhaps the conversation should focus on the uncertainty among the three professional groups,” he added. “Women should know the facts: that all three groups agree there is no scientific evidence that these examinations are beneficial; that there is evidence of harms including ‘false alarms,’ further testing, and even unnecessary surgery; and that one group strongly recommends against screening examinations, believing them to be more harmful than beneficial,” he said.
The USPSTF recommendation is not a surprise, Colleen McNicholas, DO, MSCI, and Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, PhD, noted in a second editorial (JAMA 2017;317[9]:910-11). “Despite lack of rigorous research, many would argue that the periodic examination provides opportunity for counseling and trust building between the patient and physician and thus should be universally implemented,” they wrote. However, many women express fear and anxiety before the exam and discomfort, pain, or embarrassment during the exam. “To ignore this aspect when comparing individual parts of the examination seems insensitive and inappropriate,” they added.
“Women, as patients, should be involved in the decision regarding whether to perform a pelvic examination, and clinicians should not require that the patient undergo this procedure to obtain screening, counseling, and age-appropriate health services,” they concluded.
Dr. Sawaya is affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco. He reported having no financial conflicts. Dr. Peipert is affiliated with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and disclosed receiving grants from Teva Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, and Merck, as well as serving on the advisory boards of Perrigo and Teva. Dr. McNicholas is affiliated with Washington University, St. Louis, and reported having no financial conflicts.
The USPSTF task force finding of insufficient evidence to support or refute screening pelvic exams conflicts with the views of other organizations, George F. Sawaya, MD, wrote in an editorial (JAMA 2017 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0271).
The American College of Physicians currently recommends against routine screening in asymptomatic, nonpregnant women, while the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends in favor of an annual pelvic exam “based on expert opinion” despite the lack of evidence, he said.
“The USPSTF believes that in the setting of an ‘I’ statement, clinicians should be forthright with patients about the uncertainty concerning the balance of benefits and harms,” Dr. Sawaya wrote.
“But perhaps the conversation should focus on the uncertainty among the three professional groups,” he added. “Women should know the facts: that all three groups agree there is no scientific evidence that these examinations are beneficial; that there is evidence of harms including ‘false alarms,’ further testing, and even unnecessary surgery; and that one group strongly recommends against screening examinations, believing them to be more harmful than beneficial,” he said.
The USPSTF recommendation is not a surprise, Colleen McNicholas, DO, MSCI, and Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, PhD, noted in a second editorial (JAMA 2017;317[9]:910-11). “Despite lack of rigorous research, many would argue that the periodic examination provides opportunity for counseling and trust building between the patient and physician and thus should be universally implemented,” they wrote. However, many women express fear and anxiety before the exam and discomfort, pain, or embarrassment during the exam. “To ignore this aspect when comparing individual parts of the examination seems insensitive and inappropriate,” they added.
“Women, as patients, should be involved in the decision regarding whether to perform a pelvic examination, and clinicians should not require that the patient undergo this procedure to obtain screening, counseling, and age-appropriate health services,” they concluded.
Dr. Sawaya is affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco. He reported having no financial conflicts. Dr. Peipert is affiliated with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and disclosed receiving grants from Teva Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, and Merck, as well as serving on the advisory boards of Perrigo and Teva. Dr. McNicholas is affiliated with Washington University, St. Louis, and reported having no financial conflicts.
The USPSTF task force finding of insufficient evidence to support or refute screening pelvic exams conflicts with the views of other organizations, George F. Sawaya, MD, wrote in an editorial (JAMA 2017 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0271).
The American College of Physicians currently recommends against routine screening in asymptomatic, nonpregnant women, while the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends in favor of an annual pelvic exam “based on expert opinion” despite the lack of evidence, he said.
“The USPSTF believes that in the setting of an ‘I’ statement, clinicians should be forthright with patients about the uncertainty concerning the balance of benefits and harms,” Dr. Sawaya wrote.
“But perhaps the conversation should focus on the uncertainty among the three professional groups,” he added. “Women should know the facts: that all three groups agree there is no scientific evidence that these examinations are beneficial; that there is evidence of harms including ‘false alarms,’ further testing, and even unnecessary surgery; and that one group strongly recommends against screening examinations, believing them to be more harmful than beneficial,” he said.
The USPSTF recommendation is not a surprise, Colleen McNicholas, DO, MSCI, and Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, PhD, noted in a second editorial (JAMA 2017;317[9]:910-11). “Despite lack of rigorous research, many would argue that the periodic examination provides opportunity for counseling and trust building between the patient and physician and thus should be universally implemented,” they wrote. However, many women express fear and anxiety before the exam and discomfort, pain, or embarrassment during the exam. “To ignore this aspect when comparing individual parts of the examination seems insensitive and inappropriate,” they added.
“Women, as patients, should be involved in the decision regarding whether to perform a pelvic examination, and clinicians should not require that the patient undergo this procedure to obtain screening, counseling, and age-appropriate health services,” they concluded.
Dr. Sawaya is affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco. He reported having no financial conflicts. Dr. Peipert is affiliated with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and disclosed receiving grants from Teva Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, and Merck, as well as serving on the advisory boards of Perrigo and Teva. Dr. McNicholas is affiliated with Washington University, St. Louis, and reported having no financial conflicts.
Current evidence fails to support or reject routine screening pelvic exams for asymptomatic, low-risk, nonpregnant adult women, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded after reviewing the evidence on the accuracy, benefits, and potential harms.
The USPSTF issued an inconclusive “I” statement that was published online March 7 (JAMA. 2017;317[9]:947-53).
Researchers found no data comparing the impact of no screening versus screening pelvic examinations on patient health outcomes including reducing all-cause mortality, reducing cancer-specific and disease-specific morbidity and mortality, and improving quality of life.
“No direct evidence was identified for overall benefits and harms of the pelvic examination as a one-time or periodic screening test,” Janelle M. Guirguis-Blake, MD, of the University of Washington, Tacoma, and colleagues wrote in the accompanying evidence report (JAMA. 2017;317[9]:954-66). The review comprised nine studies: one addressing the harms of screening and eight addressing both harms and accuracy.
Although screening pelvic exams may identify serious conditions as well as benign ones, the potential remains for false-positive and false-negative results that might lead to invasive surgery and unnecessary testing and procedures, the researchers noted. However, the recommendations do not apply to certain conditions for which screening is already recommended, including cervical cancer (via Pap smear), gonorrhea, and chlamydia.
The recommendations are primarily a call for more research rather than a clear guide for clinicians, according to the USPSTF. The research gaps include studies on the physical and psychological harms of pelvic screening for asymptomatic women in primary care; the ability of screening to detect conditions beyond ovarian cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis, and trichomoniasis; and the impact of screening on a variety of health outcomes, including quality of life.
Given the inadequate evidence to recommend for or against screening, the USPSTF cited the recommendations of other organizations. Both the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recommend against performing screening pelvic exams in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends annual pelvic exams for women 21 years and older but acknowledges a lack of evidence and has said it should be a shared decision between the patient and clinician.
The USPSTF members reported having no relevant financial conflicts.
Current evidence fails to support or reject routine screening pelvic exams for asymptomatic, low-risk, nonpregnant adult women, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded after reviewing the evidence on the accuracy, benefits, and potential harms.
The USPSTF issued an inconclusive “I” statement that was published online March 7 (JAMA. 2017;317[9]:947-53).
Researchers found no data comparing the impact of no screening versus screening pelvic examinations on patient health outcomes including reducing all-cause mortality, reducing cancer-specific and disease-specific morbidity and mortality, and improving quality of life.
“No direct evidence was identified for overall benefits and harms of the pelvic examination as a one-time or periodic screening test,” Janelle M. Guirguis-Blake, MD, of the University of Washington, Tacoma, and colleagues wrote in the accompanying evidence report (JAMA. 2017;317[9]:954-66). The review comprised nine studies: one addressing the harms of screening and eight addressing both harms and accuracy.
Although screening pelvic exams may identify serious conditions as well as benign ones, the potential remains for false-positive and false-negative results that might lead to invasive surgery and unnecessary testing and procedures, the researchers noted. However, the recommendations do not apply to certain conditions for which screening is already recommended, including cervical cancer (via Pap smear), gonorrhea, and chlamydia.
The recommendations are primarily a call for more research rather than a clear guide for clinicians, according to the USPSTF. The research gaps include studies on the physical and psychological harms of pelvic screening for asymptomatic women in primary care; the ability of screening to detect conditions beyond ovarian cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis, and trichomoniasis; and the impact of screening on a variety of health outcomes, including quality of life.
Given the inadequate evidence to recommend for or against screening, the USPSTF cited the recommendations of other organizations. Both the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recommend against performing screening pelvic exams in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends annual pelvic exams for women 21 years and older but acknowledges a lack of evidence and has said it should be a shared decision between the patient and clinician.
The USPSTF members reported having no relevant financial conflicts.
FROM JAMA