Search

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AF: SELAS Pointgyn, Laboratoire Innotech International, Respiratory and Women’s Health Products, Center for observational and real-world evidence (CORE);CLR: Ferring;CRJ:Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono Healthcare, Mylan, Roche, Theramex;ES: Evalformsanté;HB: Organon, Bayer, Gédéon Richter, MSD vaccins, Exeltix, Besins;LMM: Ferring, Vichy, Ipsen, Evalformsanté, Besins, Gédéon Richter, Effik, Theramex;MB: Gédéon Richter;ML: Theramex, Gédéon Richter, Ferring, IBSA Pharma, Merck, Serono, Organon and Exeltis;SM: HAS;TB:Nordic Pharma;VB: Merck, IBSA Pharma and Besins-HealthCare, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Ferring, IBSA Pharma, Merck Serono, Organon and Exeltis;VG: PFIZER and HAC pharma;XD: Sanofi, Astellas, Coloplast, Hologic, IBSA Pharma, Laborie, Mylan, Pierre-Fabre, Elsevier-Masson, Regimedia and HealthEvents;YA: Conférences Hermes;YC: HAS. Other authors declared no C.O.I.

Objective: To provide guidelines for the pelvic clinical exam in gynecology and obstetrics., Material and Methods: A multidisciplinary experts consensus committee of 45 experts was formed, including representatives of patients' associations and users of the health system. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any funding. The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized., Methods: The committee studied 40 questions within 4 fields for symptomatic or asymptomatic women (emergency conditions, gynecological consultation, gynecological diseases, obstetrics, and pregnancy). Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology., Results: The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 27 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 17 present a strong agreement, 7 a weak agreement and 3 an expert consensus agreement. Thirteen questions resulted in an absence of recommendation due to lack of evidence in the literature., Conclusions: The need to perform clinical examination in gynecological and obstetrics patients was specified in 27 pre-defined situations based on scientific evidence. More research is required to investigate the benefit in other cases., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)