SynthesisBMC women's health2026
The effect of using lubricant for vaginal speculum insertion on the rate of unsatisfactory results of Pap smear: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 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
backgroundCervical cancer affects approximately 620,000 women annually and remains a leading cause of cancer mortality, particularly in low-resource settings. This meta-analysis evaluates whether lubricant use during vaginal speculum insertion affects unsatisfactory cytologic results in Pap smear procedures.
methodsWe systematically searched WoS/ISI, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases. RCTs and cohort studies were analysed in separate subgroup analyses per Cochrane Handbook recommendations. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane RoB 2 tool; evidence certainty was rated via GRADE. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessment (funnel plots, Egger's test) were performed.
resultsOf 2,112 identified records, 14 studies comprising 18,681 women (7,757 lubricant; 10,924 control) met inclusion criteria (Cohen's Kappa = 0.79). Overall, water-based lubricant did not significantly affect unsatisfactory Pap smear rates (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.90-1.44; P = 0.280; I² = 38.74%). Subgroup analysis confirmed no significant impact in RCTs (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.58-1.16; P = 0.253; I² = 0%), while cohort studies showed a borderline trend toward increased rates (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.98-1.90; P = 0.062; I² = 59.98%). A non-significant trend toward pain reduction was observed (SMD = - 0.77, 95% CI: -1.55 to 0.01; P = 0.054); however, extreme heterogeneity (I² = 94.21%) precludes reliable interpretation.
conclusionsLubricant use does not compromise Pap smear adequacy based on RCT evidence of moderate certainty; the borderline cohort trend is of low certainty and should be interpreted with caution. Pain evidence is inconsistent and highly heterogeneous; no clinical recommendation regarding patient comfort can be made. Large-scale standardized RCTs examining LSIL/HSIL detection are warranted. These findings support cautious guideline consideration of lubricant use pending higher-certainty evidence.
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.