Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Med J Aust. 1995 Apr 17;162(8):408-10.

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

Author information

1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton, VIC.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the place of bimanual pelvic examination as a routine procedure in healthy women.

METHODS:

2623 healthy, asymptomatic volunteers (mean age, 51 years; range, 25-92 years) underwent pelvic examination as part of an ovarian cancer screening program. The presence of a bulky or fibroid uterus and adnexal abnormality was noted. Pelvic ultrasonography was used to investigate adnexal abnormalities and was also performed in all women with an elevated serum CA-125 antigen level (> 35 U/mL). Laparoscopy or laparotomy was performed as clinically indicated.

RESULTS:

A bulky or fibroid uterus was detected in 12.9% of women. The prevalence of abnormal adnexal findings was 1.5%, with a positive predictive value for a subsequent diagnosis of benign adnexal abnormality of 22%. The specificity of vaginal examination for malignancy was 99.9%. No ovarian malignancies were identified at initial screening.

CONCLUSIONS:

This "routine" procedure is undertaken in the belief that it serves a screening purpose. The detection of benign uterine abnormality is of no clear benefit as progression to malignancy is rare. Bimanual pelvic examination is of questionable value as a screening strategy in view of the low incidence of ovarian cancer in healthy women, and the relatively high prevalence (1.5%) of relatively unimportant adnexal abnormalities.

Comment in

PMID:
7746172
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Support Center