HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by PADILLA, L. A. Articles by MILAD, M. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by PADILLA, L. A. Articles by MILAD, M. P.

Accuracy of the Pelvic Examination in Detecting Adnexal Masses

From the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Outcome Research Center, Division of Health Services Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois.

Address reprint requests to: Luis A. Padilla, MD University of Minnesota Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Division of Gynecologic Oncology 420 Delaware Street, SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 E-mail: padi0013{at}tc.umn.edu

Objective: To estimate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, Youden J statistic, and likelihood ratio of pelvic examination in adnexal assessment under ideal circumstances.

Methods: One hundred forty women consented to have pelvic examinations under general anesthesia before laparoscopy or laparotomy. They were assigned to examiners masked to indications for surgery, including attending gynecologists, gynecology residents, and medical students. Surgeons’ findings were compared with examiners’ findings. Variables assessed included adnexal diameter, presence of adnexal masses, and effect modifiers such as examiner experience and body mass index.

Results: Forty-nine left adnexal and 33 right adnexal masses were found during surgery. Examiners tended to underestimate adnexal size. Sensitivity of pelvic examinations for detecting left adnexal masses was 0.23–0.36 and for right adnexal masses was 0.15–0.28. Positive predictive value was low for left adnexal masses (0.50–0.69) and right adnexal masses (0.26–0.39). Differences among examiner groups were not statistically significant. Patient obesity noticeably reduced detection of adnexal masses on either side.

Conclusion: Bimanual pelvic examination has marked limitations for evaluating adnexa, even with ideal circumstances. Experience during postgraduate training in gynecology did not seem to improve examination accuracy. Patient characteristics such as obesity, uterine size, and abdominal scars limit the accurate palpation of the adnexa.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Edelman, J. Anderson, S. Lai, D. A.V. Braner, and K. Tegtmeyer Pelvic Examination N. Engl. J. Med., June 28, 2007; 356(26): e26 - e26. [PDF]

				K.G. Dragisic, L.A. Padilla, and M.P. Milad The accuracy of the rectovaginal examination in detecting cul-de-sac disease in patients under general anaesthesia Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2003; 18(8): 1712 - 1715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]