Literature DB >> 26975912

Recommendations on routine screening pelvic examination: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care adoption of the American College of Physicians guideline.

Marcello Tonelli1, Sarah Connor Gorber2, Ainsley Moore3, Brett D Thombs4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review the 2014 American College of Physicians (ACP) guideline on the use of pelvic examinations to screen for cancer (other than cervical), pelvic inflammatory disease, or other benign gynecologic conditions to determine whether the ACP guideline on routine pelvic examinations was consistent with Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) standards and could be adapted or adopted.
METHODS: The SNAP-IT (Smooth National Adaptation and Presentation of Guidelines to Improve Thrombosis Treatment) method was used to determine whether the ACP guideline was consistent with CTFPHC standards and could be adapted or adopted. RECOMMENDATIONS: The CTFPHC recommends not performing a screening pelvic examination to screen for noncervical cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, or other gynecological conditions in asymptomatic women. This is a strong recommendation with moderate-quality evidence.
CONCLUSION: The CTFPHC adopts the recommendation on screening pelvic examination as published by the ACP in 2014. Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26975912      PMCID: PMC4984604     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  25 in total

1.  Recommendations on screening for cervical cancer.

Authors:  James Dickinson; Eva Tsakonas; Sarah Conner Gorber; Gabriela Lewin; Elizabeth Shaw; Harminder Singh; Michel Joffres; Richard Birtwhistle; Marcello Tonelli; Verna Mai; Meg McLachlin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Attitudes towards pelvic examination and chaperones: a questionnaire survey of patients and providers.

Authors:  Pamela Fiddes; Alison Scott; Joan Fletcher; Anna Glasier
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Attitudes toward pelvic examinations in two primary care settings.

Authors:  D Golomb
Journal:  R I Med J       Date:  1983-07

4.  Comparison between participants and non-participants at a gynaecological mass screening.

Authors:  I Hesselius; H O Lisper; A Nordström; B Anshelm-Olson; B Odlund
Journal:  Scand J Soc Med       Date:  1975

5.  Evaluation of the usefulness of the 'hormones with optional pelvic exam' programme offered at a family planning clinic.

Authors:  Laura Armstrong; Erin Zabel; Hind A Beydoun
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2012-04-23       Impact factor: 1.848

6.  Pain predicts non-adherence to pap smear screening among middle-aged African American women.

Authors:  Cathrine Hoyo; Kimberly S H Yarnall; Celette Sugg Skinner; Patricia G Moorman; Denethia Sellers; LaVerne Reid
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Women's attitudes to and awareness of smear testing and cervical cancer.

Authors:  C K Yu; J Rymer
Journal:  Br J Fam Plann       Date:  1998-01

8.  Predictors of Papanicolaou smear return in a hospital-based adolescent and young adult clinic.

Authors:  Jessica A Kahn; Elizabeth Goodman; Bin Huang; Gail B Slap; S Jean Emans
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 9.  Screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, average-risk adult women: an evidence report for a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.

Authors:  Hanna E Bloomfield; Andrew Olson; Nancy Greer; Amy Cantor; Roderick MacDonald; Indulis Rutks; Timothy J Wilt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Is there any value in bimanual pelvic examination as a screening test.

Authors:  S R Grover; M A Quinn
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1995-04-17       Impact factor: 7.738

View more
  5 in total

1.  Evidence that supports policies to delay cervical screening until after age 25 years.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Gina Ogilvie; Dirk Van Niekerk; Cathy Popadiuk
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Recommendations for the routine screening pelvic examination: Could they have a negative effect on physician competence?

Authors:  Roger Ladouceur
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Concern is not based on evidence.

Authors:  Ainsley Moore
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Rapid recommendations: Updates from 2019 guidelines: part 2.

Authors:  Danielle O'Toole
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Extent, regional variation and impact of gynecologist payment models in routine pelvic examinations: a nationwide cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Ingvild Mathiesen Rosenlund; Linda Leivseth; Ingard Nilsen; Olav Helge Førde; Arthur Revhaug
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 2.809

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.