来自BJOG外部的见解

A. Kent, S. Kirtley
{"title":"来自BJOG外部的见解","authors":"A. Kent, S. Kirtley","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.16196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ‘per vaginum’ (PV) examination is central to making any gynaecological diagnoses but is it warranted in asymptomatic women? If a woman does not require cervical screening or her intra-uterine device checking, is a PV examination a legitimate part of a ‘well-woman’ visit? Harms and benefits need to be weighed about every aspect of our professional interactions and far more asymptomatic women attend clinics and doctors than those with symptoms. The potential harms of a PV examination – or to use the American term bimanual pelvic examination (BPE) – are listed as pain, discomfort, fear, anxiety and embarrassment (Bloomfield et al. Ann Intern Med 2014;161: 46–53). More importantly, the prospect of being examined vaginally may dissuade women from consulting a professional for contraceptive initiation or supplies. A survey from the USA has estimated that in 15–20-year-old women, half of all BPEs are done unnecessarily and that three-quarters of tests for cervical cancer are not in accordance with current recommendations (Qin et al. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:274–80). Two of the most common reasons for PV examinations that could – and should – be avoided are prior to starting oral contraceptives and for cervical screening in women under the age of 25 years. Both topics are crucial to well-woman consultations but the need for a physical pelvic examination is not indicated in either set of circumstances.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Insights from outside BJOG\",\"authors\":\"A. Kent, S. Kirtley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1471-0528.16196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The ‘per vaginum’ (PV) examination is central to making any gynaecological diagnoses but is it warranted in asymptomatic women? If a woman does not require cervical screening or her intra-uterine device checking, is a PV examination a legitimate part of a ‘well-woman’ visit? Harms and benefits need to be weighed about every aspect of our professional interactions and far more asymptomatic women attend clinics and doctors than those with symptoms. The potential harms of a PV examination – or to use the American term bimanual pelvic examination (BPE) – are listed as pain, discomfort, fear, anxiety and embarrassment (Bloomfield et al. Ann Intern Med 2014;161: 46–53). More importantly, the prospect of being examined vaginally may dissuade women from consulting a professional for contraceptive initiation or supplies. A survey from the USA has estimated that in 15–20-year-old women, half of all BPEs are done unnecessarily and that three-quarters of tests for cervical cancer are not in accordance with current recommendations (Qin et al. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:274–80). Two of the most common reasons for PV examinations that could – and should – be avoided are prior to starting oral contraceptives and for cervical screening in women under the age of 25 years. Both topics are crucial to well-woman consultations but the need for a physical pelvic examination is not indicated in either set of circumstances.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8984,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“阴道检查”(PV)是妇科诊断的核心,但对于无症状的女性是否有必要?如果女性不需要子宫颈检查或宫内节育器检查,那么PV检查是否是“健康女性”就诊的合法部分?在我们职业互动的各个方面都需要权衡利弊,无症状的女性比有症状的女性更多地去诊所和看医生。PV检查——或者用美国术语双盆腔检查(BPE)——的潜在危害包括疼痛、不适、恐惧、焦虑和尴尬(Bloomfield等)。中华医学杂志,2014;16(1):1 - 3。更重要的是,阴道检查的前景可能会阻止女性向专业人士咨询避孕措施的开始或供应。美国的一项调查估计,在15 - 20岁的妇女中,一半的bpe是不必要的,四分之三的宫颈癌检测不符合目前的建议(Qin等人)。JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180:274-80)。可以而且应该避免进行PV检查的两个最常见的原因是在开始口服避孕药之前和25岁以下妇女的子宫颈筛查。这两个话题对健康女性的咨询都是至关重要的,但在任何一种情况下都不需要进行盆腔物理检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Insights from outside BJOG
The ‘per vaginum’ (PV) examination is central to making any gynaecological diagnoses but is it warranted in asymptomatic women? If a woman does not require cervical screening or her intra-uterine device checking, is a PV examination a legitimate part of a ‘well-woman’ visit? Harms and benefits need to be weighed about every aspect of our professional interactions and far more asymptomatic women attend clinics and doctors than those with symptoms. The potential harms of a PV examination – or to use the American term bimanual pelvic examination (BPE) – are listed as pain, discomfort, fear, anxiety and embarrassment (Bloomfield et al. Ann Intern Med 2014;161: 46–53). More importantly, the prospect of being examined vaginally may dissuade women from consulting a professional for contraceptive initiation or supplies. A survey from the USA has estimated that in 15–20-year-old women, half of all BPEs are done unnecessarily and that three-quarters of tests for cervical cancer are not in accordance with current recommendations (Qin et al. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:274–80). Two of the most common reasons for PV examinations that could – and should – be avoided are prior to starting oral contraceptives and for cervical screening in women under the age of 25 years. Both topics are crucial to well-woman consultations but the need for a physical pelvic examination is not indicated in either set of circumstances.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Parents', Families', Communities' and Healthcare Professionals' Experiences of Care Following Neonatal Death in Healthcare Facilities in LMICs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography. Birth Outcomes After Pertussis and Influenza Diagnosed in Pregnancy: A Retrospective, Population-Based Study. Maternal Lipids in Pregnancy and Later Life Dyslipidemia: The POUCHmoms Longitudinal Cohort Study. Unpacking the Complex Relationship Between Postpartum Haemorrhage and Cardiovascular Disease A Comment on Green Top Guideline No. 31: Investigating and Care in the Small-For-Gestational-Age and Growth Restricted Foetus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1