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.
Pelvic examinations are often performed as part of routine medical checkups to screen for cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, or other gynecologic conditions among asymptomatic women.1 The pelvic examination consists of inspection of the external genitalia; speculum evaluation of the vagina and cervix; bimanual palpation of the adnexa, uterus, ovaries, and bladder; and sometimes rectal or rectovaginal digital examination.2 Pelvic examinations are distinct from the Papanicolaou test, which is used to screen for precancerous and cancerous lesions of the cervix.3 Guidelines on screening for cervical cancer have been developed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) and can be found at www.canadiantaskforce.ca.4
The CTFPHC identified routine pelvic screening as a priority through the annual topic prioritization process, in which we solicit input from primary care practitioners and other stakeholders (eg, family physicians, health agencies, researchers, and members of the public). It is increasingly recognized that adoption or adaptation of high-quality guidelines is an efficient approach to guideline development that can save resources and reduce duplication of effort. Methods such as ADAPTE5 have been developed in order to facilitate this process in a manner that is systematic and transparent.
The American College of Physicians (ACP) published a guideline on the use of pelvic examinations to screen for cancer (other than cervical), pelvic inflammatory disease, or other benign gynecologic conditions in 2014.6 The ACP recommended “against performing screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women” based on evidence that the harms of screening outweigh the benefits. The CTFPHC used the SNAP-IT (Smooth National Adaptation and Presentation of Guidelines to Improve Thrombosis Treatment7) method to determine whether the ACP guideline on routine pelvic examinations was consistent with CTFPHC standards and could be adapted or adopted.
METHODS
The SNAP-IT method was developed by the MAGIC (Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice) group, an international initiative seeking to improve the development and implementation of guidelines based on the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) system.8 The SNAP-IT method was developed to incorporate key features of the ADAPTE process and is a 5-step process designed to adapt guidelines using the GRADE system. The 5 steps include planning, initial assessment of the recommendations, modifications, publication, and evaluation.7,9 The SNAP-IT system is set up to consider 1 or more recommendations for potential inclusion in a guideline statement. For the present purpose, the CTFPHC assessed only a single recommendation on pelvic screening.
For the purpose of the ACP guideline, a pelvic examination was defined as a speculum or bimanual examination, not including the Pap test for screening for cervical cancer. The guideline focused on average risk, asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women. The ACP used a modified GRADE system (they excluded the very-low-quality evidence category and allowed for an insufficient evidence category) to rate the quality of evidence and strength of the recommendation statement.10
As a preliminary step, 4 Public Health Agency of Canada scientific staff assessed the guideline according to the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) criteria11 to determine whether the guideline was of high enough quality for further consideration. The CTFPHC considers a guideline to be high quality and eligible for further consideration if it scores at least 60% in the AGREE II domains of scope and purpose, rigour of development, and editorial independence.12 The ACP guideline received scores of 97%, 91%, and 88% on those domains, respectively.
A CTFPHC workgroup was then established. Members of the CTFPHC workgroup, which included 3 current CTFPHC members, then reviewed the guideline and supporting documentation using the SNAP-IT method to determine whether the recommendation could be considered for adoption as a CTFPHC pelvic screening guideline or whether it required adaptation to the local context. This involved determining the degree to which the workgroup members agreed that the guideline and the supporting evidence were consistent with CTFPHC standards.
A standard template was completed by each member of the workgroup* on which they independently evaluated the ACP recommendation and assessed whether it met CTFPHC standards, and, if so, if it should be adopted or adapted. To determine adoption versus adaptation, members considered if the recommendation could stand as it was (adoption) or whether it would need modification and if so how and why (adaptation). Adaptation could include changes to reflect local context (owing to identified new population, intervention, comparator, or outcomes). In cases of disagreement with a recommendation, the SNAP-IT method asks for explicit documentation of the components of a recommendation and the underlying evidence for areas of disagreement. In addition to excluding the recommendation from consideration, reviewers are able to suggest an alternative recommendation. A detailed description of the adaptation process appears in Box 1.7
Steps in the SNAP-IT process
Step 1: Planning (1 mo)
Establish editorial committee: CTFPHC workgroup established according to CTFPHC processes
Define consensus and leadership process: CTFPHC processes were followed
Select broad subject areas for adaptation: CTFPHC topic prioritization process identified routine pelvic examination as number 8 in its top 10 list for 2014 and number 4 in the top 10 list from the College of Family Physicians of Canada
Search and retrieve current and trustworthy parent guidelines: The following sites were searched for guidelines on pelvic screening examination and ovarian screening: Guidelines International Network, NICE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, US Preventive Services Task Force, and CMA Infobase. Five guidelines were identified; however, only the ACP guideline discussed the role of the pelvic examination, which was the topic of interest
Prescreen ACP guideline: ACP guideline was prescreened according to CTFPHC criteria (guideline must be based on a systematic review of the evidence, and the review must be readily available and must use an evidence grading system (GRADE preferred), have at least 1 family doctor on the author list, be focused on a primary care audience, and be produced by a non-specialist group*
Assess eligibility for further consideration: ACP guideline was assessed with AGREE II by 4 reviewers to ensure it met the criteria for high-quality guidance*
Procure licensing agreement with guideline developers to potentially endorse or adapt
Step 2: Initial assessment of the recommendations (3 mo)
Record financial and intellectual conflicts of interest according to CTFPHC procedures: Disclosures can be found at www.canadiantaskforce.ca/about-us/competing-interests
Assess recommendations: Individual assessment by workgroup members of the need to modify, exclude, or develop de novo recommendations according to SNAP-IT taxonomy; 2 of 5 workgroup members highlighted a potential change to quality of evidence (from moderate to low). After discussion the group agreed that the moderate rating of evidence was appropriate. Decision by workgroup to adopt the guideline as is
Step 3: Modifications (1 mo)
Perform a systematic search for new literature: The search identified 52 unique citations; none met the inclusion criteria of the guideline or provided additional data on the effectiveness of screening with pelvic examination or its diagnostic properties related to the outcomes of interest
Write draft recommendations
Review and seek approval by full CTFPHC
Submit final draft for peer review
Step 4: Publication
Step 5: Evaluation and planning for the future
In addition to using the SNAP-IT method to assess the compatibility of the ACP guideline with CTFPHC standards, we updated the database searches conducted by the ACP for the systematic review that was used to develop the guideline. This was done to determine if there was any new evidence published since the ACP guideline that would require reconsideration of the recommendation. The search was updated, using the same search strategy as the original review,2 from the last date of the ACP search in January 1, 2014 through to May 15, 2015.
RECOMMENDATIONS
All workgroup members and subsequently the entire CTFPHC unanimously agreed that the recommendation could be adopted without adaptation and that the ACP evidence grading was consistent with how the CTFPHC grades evidence for its guidelines.
Thus, the CTFPHC has adopted the ACP recommendation6 against performing a screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women (Box 2).
Summary of the recommendation
Recommendations are presented for the use of a screening pelvic examination (speculum or bimanual examination) in asymptomatic women. Pregnant women are excluded from this recommendation
The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommends not performing a screening pelvic examination to screen for noncervical cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, or other gynecological conditions
This is a strong recommendation with moderate-quality evidence
Summary of evidence
The ACP guideline was based on an evidence review conducted by the Department of Veteran Affairs.2 It examined the literature on the accuracy, benefits, and harms of screening pelvic examinations. The potential benefits of screening that were evaluated included decreased mortality and morbidity. Potential harms of screening that were considered included overdiagnosis, overtreatment, or other harms related to diagnostic procedures. The evidence is summarized in Box 3.2,6,13–32
Summary of evidence
As described in the ACP guideline statement,6 high-quality evidence from 3 prospective cohort studies13–15 (more details about GRADE evidence gradings can be found at www.gradeworkinggroup.org) found that the diagnostic accuracy of the pelvic screening examination was low for detecting ovarian cancer (positive predictive value < 4%) for asymptomatic women. The Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Trial included pelvic screening for the first 5 years of the trial, but when no cancers were identified as a result of this intervention, the pelvic screen was dropped from the trial.16 No studies were found that examined the diagnostic properties for detecting other types of cancers, pelvic inflammatory disease, or other benign conditions2,17 in asymptomatic women
No studies were identified that examined the mortality or morbidity benefits of pelvic screening in reducing the risk of ovarian cancer, other cancers, pelvic inflammatory disease, or other benign gynecologic conditions2,17
Low-quality evidence of harms, based on 14 surveys18–31 and 1 cohort study,32 examined women’s experiences with the pelvic examination. Approximately one-third of women (median 34%) reported fear, embarrassment, or anxiety associated with the pelvic examination, and 35% reported pain or discomfort.2,16 Those who experienced pain were less likely to return for additional visits.2,17 There were no studies that reported on the harms of false reassurance, overdiagnosis, or overtreatment, or on diagnostic procedure–related harms. However, 1 high-quality prospective cohort study15 found that, as a result of follow-up procedures from pelvic screening, 1.5% of women who were screened experienced unnecessary surgery (open or laparoscopic)2
The update to the ACP database search identified 52 unique citations, including the ACP guideline and their accompanying systematic review. No studies provided additional information about the effectiveness of screening with pelvic examination on the outcomes of interest or on its diagnostic properties
The ACP made a strong recommendation based on its judgment that the likely harms from routine pelvic examinations outweighed any benefits.6 Given the absence of evidence of benefit and the potential for harm, the CTFPHC agrees that the recommendation should be a strong recommendation against screening pelvic examinations. This means that we recommend that providers do not offer this service to asymptomatic women. Just as with the ACP recommendation, patients’ preferences and values, as well as resource use, were not considered in adopting this guideline.
Clinical considerations
While not recommended for screening asymptomatic women, pelvic examination is appropriate in other clinical situations, such as diagnosing gynecologic conditions when women present with symptoms or for follow-up of a previously diagnosed condition.
Conclusion
The CTFPHC adopts the recommendation on screening pelvic examination as published by the ACP in 2014.6
Acknowledgments
We thank Amir Qaseem and the American College of Physicians who developed the original guideline, Annette Kristiansen (SNAP-IT), and Trevor Arnason (public health resident, Public Health Agency of Canada).
Notes
EDITOR’S KEY POINTS
It is increasingly recognized that adoption or adaptation of high-quality guidelines is an efficient approach to guideline development that can save resources and reduce duplication of effort. Various methods have been developed to facilitate this process in a manner that is systematic and transparent.
After assessing the 2014 American College of Physicians guideline on the use of routine screening pelvic examinations, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care opted to adopt the American College of Physicians recommendation.
Footnotes
↵* The standard template is available at www.cfp.ca. Go to the full text of the article online and click on CFPlus in the menu at the top right-hand side of the page.
The full membership of the task force can be found at www.canadiantaskforce.ca/members_eng.html.
Editorial independence
While the Public Health Agency of Canada funds the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, the views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline; competing interests have been recorded and addressed.
This article is eligible for Mainpro-M1 credits. To earn credits, go to www.cfp.ca and click on the Mainpro link.
This article has been peer reviewed.
La traduction en français de cet article se trouve à www.cfp.ca dans la table des matières du numéro de mars 2016 à la page e117.
Competing interests
None of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care members has any relevant financial conflicts of interest to disclose. Full disclosures are available from www.canadiantaskforce.ca/about-us/competing-interests.
- Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada
References
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Consideration of antimicrobial resistance and contextual factors in infectious disease guidelines: a systematic survey
- Rapid recommendations: Updates from 2019 guidelines: part 2
- Cervical cancer screening for young women: First do no harm
- Depistage du cancer du col chez les jeunes femmes: Dabord ne pas nuire
- Evidence that supports policies to delay cervical screening until after age 25 years
- Concern is not based on evidence
- Recommendations for the routine screening pelvic examination: Could they have a negative effect on physician competence?