ArticlePloS one2026
Comfort or conservation? Investigating patient choices between plastic and metal speculums.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe pelvic examination is essential in gynecologic care but often causes discomfort and anxiety. Choice of plastic or metal speculums may influence patient comfort and adherence to screening, yet patient preferences and environmental considerations remain underexplored.
objectiveTo assess patient preferences between plastic and metal speculums, identify factors influencing these preferences, and evaluate environmental concerns related to speculum use.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 203 patients receiving care at West Virginia University's Obstetrics and Gynecology clinics between September 15, 2024 and June 16, 2025. Participants completed an anonymous online questionnaire assessing speculum preference, comfort factors, sanitation perceptions, and environmental awareness. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.
resultsPlastic speculums were preferred by 49.8% of respondents, followed by no preference (32.5%) and metal speculums (17.7%). Younger participants (ages 18-35) showed a stronger preference for plastic. The speculum was identified as the most uncomfortable aspect of the exam by 34.4% of respondents, with temperature and positioning also frequently cited. Plastic was perceived as more sanitary by 45.8%. Environmental concern about plastic waste was higher among younger respondents and those preferring metal speculums. Despite ecological awareness, comfort during the exam was the predominant factor influencing preference.
conclusionsPatient discomfort remains a primary barrier to maintaining consistent patient care in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, and this research found that the majority favor plastic speculums due to comfort despite environmental concerns in their lack of reusability. Efforts to improve pelvic exam experiences should address both comfort and sustainability, including innovations in speculum design, patient education on reusable options, and alternative screening methods. Further research is warranted to balance patient-centered care with environmental stewardship.
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.