Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Women's preferences regarding the use of chaperones during proctological examinations conducted by male physicians: a randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03615586 (The Use of Chaperone in Routine First Visit Anorectal Examination of Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
The Use of Chaperone in Routine First Visit Anorectal Examination of Women
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sustainable quality improvement interventions to ensure adequate physician documentation of chaperone presence in breast clinic: a multicycle clinical audit.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe presence of chaperones during intimate physical examinations is a matter of ongoing debate. While most guidelines recommend the use of chaperones in all cases, there are no clinical trials specifically investigating intimate exams performed on women by male physicians. We aimed to evaluate female patients' perceptions regarding the presence or absence of chaperones during proctological examinations conducted by male physicians.
methodsIn this randomised clinical trial, patients were assigned, unaware that they were participating in a study, to either Group 1 (without a chaperone during their proctological exam) or Group 2 (with a chaperone). After the appointment, they completed a questionnaire regarding the examination they had just undergone. The study was conducted at two hospitals in Southern Brazil.
resultsNinety-five patients were included in each group. The mean (SD) comfort score was 8.3 (2.9) with a chaperone and 8.8 (2.5) without a chaperone (P = 0.25). When asked if they would want the exam performed the same way in the future, 72.6% in Group 1 answered 'yes', compared to 58.9% in Group 2 (P = 0.046). In Group 2, 48.4% of patients did not feel more protected by the chaperone, while none of the patients in Group 1 felt less protected without one.
conclusionsForgoing chaperones during proctological examinations of women, when the physician is male, is well accepted by most patients. Preferences regarding chaperones are complex, demanding a selective approach. The use of chaperones should remain a recommendation, not a requirement, to accommodate individual needs while maintaining the doctor-patient relationship.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03615586.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.