SavedAdd your journal

Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2017 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

Impact of Bimanual Vaginal Examination on Pap Smear Test Results

Esengül TÜRKYILMAZ
Melahat YILDIRIM
Raziye DESDİCİOĞLU
Huban Sibel ORHUN YAVUZ
Ayşe Filiz Yavuz AVŞAR
Pages
26–31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, the patientshave to be informed that cervicovaginal smear result might be inadequate so that a repeat test has tobe carried out

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the possible effects of the various conditions especiallybimanual examination on the adequacy of pap smear test.STUDY DESIGN: Presented here is a prospective controlled clinical trial carried out at Ankara AtatürkTraining and Research Hospital between November 2013 and March 2014.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Total of 1771 patients seenat the gynecology outpatient clinic were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, the patientshave to be informed that cervicovaginal smear result might be inadequate so that a repeat test has tobe carried out
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the possible effects of the various conditions especiallybimanual examination on the adequacy of pap smear test.STUDY DESIGN: Presented here is a prospective controlled clinical trial carried out at Ankara AtatürkTraining and Research Hospital between November 2013 and March 2014. Total of 1771 patients seenat the gynecology outpatient clinic were included in the study. The technique described by the AmericanSociety of Cytopathology Criteria 2000 for the preparation of the specimen was followed. UpdatedBethesda system 2014 was used for reporting the results.RESULTS: Number of subjects in smear before examination group was 1194 and in the smear after examination group was 577. Two percent (n=36 subjects) of the cervicovaginal report was inadequate.When other clinical conditions were not taken into consideration, the likelihood ratio for inadequatesmear in the smear after examination group was 2.64 compared to smear before examination group(p=0,004). CONCLUSIONS: In some conditions cervicovaginal smear sampling may be carried out after bimanual vaginal examination instead of missing the chance to screen the women. However, the patientshave to be informed that cervicovaginal smear result might be inadequate so that a repeat test has tobe carried out

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRKYILMAZ, E., YILDIRIM, M., DESDİCİOĞLU, R., YAVUZ, H. S. O., AVŞAR, A. F. Y. (2017). Impact of Bimanual Vaginal Examination on Pap Smear Test Results. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 26–31. https://ajindex.com/articles/167560

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121(3):211-24
  2. Cervix cancer screening. In: International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Lyo: IARC Press; 2005
  3. Spence AR, Goggan P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer; systematic review and metaanalysis. Preventive Medicine 2007;45(2-3):93-106
  4. Abulafia O, Sherer DM. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the PAPNET system. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1999;54(4):253-64
  5. Gupta S, Sodhani P, Sardana S, Singh V, Sehgal A. Clinical determinants and smear characteristics of unsatisfactory conventional cervicovaginal smears. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biology 2013;168(2):214-7
  6. American Society of Cytopathology Criteria 2000. Available from: www. Cytopathology. Org 7. Nayar, Ritu, Wilbur, David. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology. Definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes 2015. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-11074- 5_1
  7. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: Terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287(16):2114-9
  8. Gilson M, Desai A, Cardoza-Favarato G, Vroman P, Thornton JA. Does Gel Affect Cytology or Comfort in the screening Papanicolaou Smear? Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 2006;19(4):340-4
  9. Köşüş A, Köşüş N, Duran M, Haltaş H, Hızlı D, Kafalı H. Effect of liquid-based gel application during speculum examination on satisfactory level of smear examination. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;285(6):1599-602
  10. Paulin H, Geldenhys L, Naugler C. Predictors of an unsatisfactory conventional cervical cytology smear. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011;33(7):725-8
  11. Lu CH, Chang CC, Chang MC, Chen SJ, Jan YJ, Fu TF, et al. Clinical parameters associated with unsatisfactory specimens of conventional cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39(2):87-91
  12. Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M, Klinkhamer P, Pellegrini A, Siebers AG, et al. Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Papsmears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomized clinical trials. BJOG 2010;117:1067-73
  13. Kristensen GB, Skyggebjerg KD, Holund B, Holm K, Hansen MK. Analysis of cervical smears obtained within three years of the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer. Acta Cytol 1991;35(1):47-50
  14. Vooijs PG, Elias A, Van der Graaf Y, Veling S. Rel