[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.12.79. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
1.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  ACOG practice bulletin: cervical cytology screening: number 45, August 2003.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;83(2):237-247. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00412-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Committee on Gynecologic Practice.  Committee opinion No. 534: well-woman visit.  Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(2, pt 1):421-424. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182680517PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement [published correction appears in Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(11):852].  Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880-891, W312. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00424PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology.  ACOG practice bulletin number 131: screening for cervical cancer.  Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1222-1238. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318277c92aPubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Saslow  D, Solomon  D, Lawson  HW,  et al; ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(3):147-172. doi:10.3322/caac.21139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Qaseem  A, Humphrey  LL, Harris  R, Starkey  M, Denberg  TD; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.  Screening pelvic examination in adult women: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(1):67-72. doi:10.7326/M14-0701PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
American Academy of Family Physicians. AAFP recommends against pelvic exams in asymptomatic women. https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20170425aafppelvicexam.html. Published April 25, 2017. Accessed October 23, 2018.
8.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for gynecologic conditions with pelvic examination: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  JAMA. 2017;317(9):947-953. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0807PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
 ACOG Committee opinion No. 754: the utility of and indications for routine pelvic examination.  Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(4):e174-e180. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002895PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for gonorrhea: recommendation statement.  Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):263-267. doi:10.1370/afm.337PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for chlamydial infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(2):128-134. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-2-200707170-00172PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Curtis  KM, Jatlaoui  TC, Tepper  NK,  et al.  US selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016.  MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(4):1-66. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6504a1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
National Center for Health Statistics. National Survey of Family Growth. Hyattsville, MD: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Center for Health Statistics; 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/index.htm. Accessed January 3, 2019.
14.
Groves  RM, Mosher  WD, Lepkowski  JM, Kirgis  NG.  Planning and development of the continuous National Survey of Family Growth.  Vital Health Stat 1. 2009;(48):1-64. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_048.pdf.PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Lepkowski  JM, Mosher  WD, Davis  KE, Groves  RM, Van Hoewyk  J.  The 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth: sample design and analysis of a continuous survey.  Vital Health Stat 2. 2010;(150):1-36. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_150.pdf.PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Lepkowski  JM, Mosher  WD, Groves  RM, West  BT, Wagner  J, Gu  H.  Responsive design, weighting, and variance estimation in the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth.  Vital Health Stat 2. 2013;(158):1-52. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_158.pdf.PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Panel on Opportunistic Infections in HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections in adults and adolescents with HIV: recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/lvguidelines/adult_oi.pdf. Updated October 22, 2019. Accessed August 23, 2019.
18.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Physician Fee Schedule Search Tool. https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/overview.aspx. Updated October 4, 2019. Accessed March 23, 2019.
19.
Sawaya  GF, Jacoby  V.  Screening pelvic examinations: right, wrong, or rite?  Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(1):78-79. doi:10.7326/M14-1205PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Henderson  JT, Harper  CC, Gutin  S, Saraiya  M, Chapman  J, Sawaya  GF.  Routine bimanual pelvic examinations: practices and beliefs of US obstetrician-gynecologists.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(2):109.e1-109.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Stewart  FH, Harper  CC, Ellertson  CE, Grimes  DA, Sawaya  GF, Trussell  J.  Clinical breast and pelvic examination requirements for hormonal contraception: current practice vs evidence.  JAMA. 2001;285(17):2232-2239. doi:10.1001/jama.285.17.2232PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Fiddes  P, Scott  A, Fletcher  J, Glasier  A.  Attitudes towards pelvic examination and chaperones: a questionnaire survey of patients and providers.  Contraception. 2003;67(4):313-317. doi:10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00540-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Harper  C, Balistreri  E, Boggess  J, Leon  K, Darney  P.  Provision of hormonal contraceptives without a mandatory pelvic examination: the first Stop Demonstration Project.  Fam Plann Perspect. 2001;33(1):13-18. doi:10.2307/2673737PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Kahn  JA, Chiou  V, Allen  JD, Goodman  E, Perlman  SE, Emans  SJ.  Beliefs about Papanicolaou smears and compliance with Papanicolaou smear follow-up in adolescents.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153(10):1046-1054. doi:10.1001/archpedi.153.10.1046PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Bloomfield  HE, Olson  A, Greer  N,  et al.  Screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, average-risk adult women: an evidence report for a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(1):46-53. doi:10.7326/M13-2881PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Hawks  L, Woolhandler  S, Himmelstein  DU, Bor  DH, Gaffney  A, McCormick  D.  Association between forced sexual initiation and health outcomes among US women [published online September 16, 2019].  JAMA Intern Med. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3500Google Scholar
27.
Barry  D, Kovaleski  SF, Macur  J. As FBI took a year to pursue the Nassar case, dozens say they were molested.New York Times. February 3, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/sports/nassar-fbi.html. Accessed March 06, 2019.
28.
Henderson  JT, Sawaya  GF, Blum  M, Stratton  L, Harper  CC.  Pelvic examinations and access to oral hormonal contraception.  Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1257-1264. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fb540fPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Westhoff  CL, Jones  HE, Guiahi  M.  Do new guidelines and technology make the routine pelvic examination obsolete?  J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011;20(1):5-10. doi:10.1089/jwh.2010.2349PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. United States cancer statistics, 1999-2015 incidence, WONDER online database. United States Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute. https://wonder.cdc.gov/cancer-v2015.html. Updated November 19, 2019. Accessed October 12, 2018.
31.
Committee on Gynecologic Practice, Society of Gynecologic Oncology.  Committee opinion No. 716: the role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer in women at average risk.  Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(3):e146-e149. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002299PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for ovarian cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  JAMA. 2018;319(6):588-594. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21926PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Smith  RA, Andrews  KS, Brooks  D,  et al.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):297-316. doi:10.3322/caac.21446PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Stormo  AR, Cooper  CP, Hawkins  NA, Saraiya  M.  Physician characteristics and beliefs associated with use of pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women.  Prev Med. 2012;54(6):415-421. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.03.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Stormo  AR, Hawkins  NA, Cooper  CP, Saraiya  M.  The pelvic examination as a screening tool: practices of US physicians.  Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(22):2053-2054. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.575PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Workowski  KA, Bolan  GA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.  MMWR Recomm Rep. 2015;64(RR-03):1-137. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr6403.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2019.PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Chernesky  MA, Hook  EW  III, Martin  DH,  et al.  Women find it easy and prefer to collect their own vaginal swabs to diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis or Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.  Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32(12):729-733. doi:10.1097/01.olq.0000190057.61633.8dPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Serlin  M, Shafer  MA, Tebb  K,  et al.  What sexually transmitted disease screening method does the adolescent prefer? adolescents’ attitudes toward first-void urine, self-collected vaginal swab, and pelvic examination.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(6):588-591. doi:10.1001/archpedi.156.6.588PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Yu  JM, Henderson  JT, Harper  CC, Sawaya  GF.  Obstetrician-gynecologists’ beliefs on the importance of pelvic examinations in assessing hormonal contraception eligibility.  Contraception. 2014;90(6):612-614. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.06.038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Kling  JM, Vegunta  S, Al-Badri  M,  et al.  Routine pelvic examinations: a descriptive cross-sectional survey of women’s attitudes and beliefs after new guidelines.  Prev Med. 2017;94:60-64. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.11.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Norrell  LL, Kuppermann  M, Moghadassi  MN, Sawaya  GF.  Women’s beliefs about the purpose and value of routine pelvic examinations.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(1):86.e1-86.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Sawaya  GF, Smith-McCune  KK, Gregorich  SE, Moghadassi  M, Kuppermann  M.  Effect of professional society recommendations on women’s desire for a routine pelvic examination.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):338.e1-338.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 4,028
    Citations 0
    Original Investigation
    Less Is More
    January 6, 2020

    Prevalence of Potentially Unnecessary Bimanual Pelvic Examinations and Papanicolaou Tests Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women Aged 15-20 Years in the United States

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
    • 2Reproductive Statistics Branch, National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland
    • 3Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco
    • 4Center for Healthcare Value, University of California, San Francisco
    JAMA Intern Med. Published online January 6, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5727
    Key Points

    Question  What is the prevalence of potentially unnecessary bimanual pelvic examinations and Papanicolaou tests among US women aged 15 to 20 years?

    Findings  In this population-based, cross-sectional study using data from 2011 to 2017, an estimated 2.6 million women aged 15 to 20 years in the United States (22.9%) received a bimanual pelvic examination in the past year, and 54.4% of these examinations were potentially unnecessary. An estimated 2.2 million young women (19.2%) received a Papanicolaou test in the past year, and 71.9% of these tests were potentially unnecessary.

    Meaning  The findings suggest that many young women receive potentially unnecessary bimanual pelvic examinations and Papanicolaou tests.

    Abstract

    Importance  Pelvic examination is no longer recommended for asymptomatic, nonpregnant women and may cause harms such as false-positive test results, overdiagnosis, anxiety, and unnecessary costs. The bimanual pelvic examination (BPE) is an invasive and controversial examination component. Cervical cancer screening is not recommended for women younger than 21 years.

    Objectives  To estimate prevalence of potentially unnecessary BPE and Papanicolaou (Pap) tests performed among adolescent girls and women younger than 21 years (hereinafter referred to as young women) in the United States and to identify factors associated with receiving these examinations.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  A cross-sectional analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth from September 2011 through September 2017 focused on a population-based sample of young women aged 15 to 20 years (n = 3410). The analysis used survey weights to estimate prevalence and the number of people represented in the US population. Data were analyzed from December 21, 2018, through September 3, 2019.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Receipt of a BPE or a Pap test in the last 12 months and the proportion of potentially unnecessary examinations and tests.

    Results  Responses from 3410 young women aged 15 to 20 years were included in the analysis with 6-year sampling weights applied. Among US young women aged 15 to 20 years represented during the 2011-2017 study period, 4.8% (95% CI, 3.9%-5.9%) were pregnant, 22.3% (95% CI, 20.1%-24.6%) had undergone STI testing, and 4.5% (95% CI, 3.6%-5.5%) received treatment or medication for an STI in the past 12 months (Table 1). Only 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.9%) reported using an IUD, and 33.5% (95% CI, 30.8%-36.4%) used at least 1 other type of hormonal contraception in the past 12 months. Among US young women aged 15 to 20 years who were surveyed in the years 2011 through 2017, approximately 2.6 million (22.9%; 95% CI, 20.7%-25.3%) reported having received a BPE in the last 12 months. Approximately half of these examinations (54.4%; 95% CI, 48.8%-59.9%) were potentially unnecessary, representing an estimated 1.4 million individuals. Receipt of a BPE was associated with having a Pap test (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 7.12; 95% CI, 5.56-9.12), testing for sexually transmitted infections (aPR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.34-1.90), and using hormonal contraception other than an intrauterine device (aPR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.54). In addition, an estimated 2.2 million young women (19.2%; 95% CI, 17.2%-21.4%) reported having received a Pap test in the past 12 months, and 71.9% (95% CI, 66.0%-77.1%) of these tests were potentially unnecessary.

    Conclusions and Relevance  This analysis found that more than half of BPEs and almost three-quarters of Pap tests performed among young women aged 15 to 20 years during the years 2011 through 2017 were potentially unnecessary, exposing women to preventable harms. The results suggest that compliance with the current professional guidelines regarding the appropriate use of these examinations and tests may be lacking.

    ×