Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41881036›Full record

SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026

Effectiveness of Interventions to Improve Women's Experience of Pelvic Examinations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Stéphanie Mignot, Jean-Pierre Menard, Elisabeth Iraola

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stéphanie MignotClinical Research Centre CIC 1402, CHU de Poitiers, INSERM, Department of General Practice, University of Poitiers College of Medicine and Pharmacy, Poitiers, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2504-8145
Jean-Pierre MenardDirection de la protection maternelle et infantile et promotion de la santé, Val-de-Marne, Créteil, France.
Elisabeth IraolaDepartment of Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPelvic examinations are a routine element of gynaecological and obstetric care but may generate discomfort, pain and anxiety.

methodsObjectives To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve women's experience of pelvic examinations. Search Strategy Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and ScienceDirect were searched to identify randomised interventional trials published between January 1990 and December 2024. Selection Criteria Eligible studies compared an intervention group and control group of > 15-year-old women undergoing pelvic examinations and reported physical and emotional responses, such as pain, anxiety, discomfort and embarrassment. Data Collection and Analysis Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 (RoB2) tool. Data were analysed using pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I MAIN

resultsSixteen RCTs (4641 women) were analysed. Fourteen studies assessed interventions targeting women's perceptions: procedural strategies (n = 10), environmental adaptations (n = 2), and cognitive approaches (n = 2). Two studies evaluated the information provided to the patient about the examination and an online preparatory training (n = 2). The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in pain (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.18; p = 0.001; 8 studies) and in anxiety (SMD -1.13, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.38; p = 0.003; 5 studies). Risk of bias was high (n = 5), some concerns (n = 4), and low (n = 7). Heterogeneity was high (pain: I

conclusionsSimple interventions may reduce pain and anxiety during pelvic examinations and support trauma-informed care, but the heterogeneous evidence requires more high-quality research.

Indexed as

AnxietyGynecological ExaminationFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicanxietyinterventionsmeta‐analysispainpelvic examinationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41881036
PMCPMC13419168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.