Portuguese
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Annals of Emergency Medicine 2017-Dec

Is the Pelvic Examination Still Crucial in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Vaginal Bleeding or Abdominal Pain When an Intrauterine Pregnancy Is Identified on Ultrasonography? A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Apenas usuários registrados podem traduzir artigos
Entrar Inscrever-se
O link é salvo na área de transferência
Judith A Linden
Benjamin Grimmnitz
Laura Hagopian
Alan H Breaud
Breanne K Langlois
Kerrie P Nelson
Lauren L Hart
James A Feldman
Jeremy Brown
Marc Reid

Palavras-chave

Resumo

OBJECTIVE

We determine whether omitting the pelvic examination in emergency department (ED) evaluation of vaginal bleeding or lower abdominal pain in ultrasonographically confirmed early intrauterine pregnancy is equivalent to performing the examination.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomized, equivalence trial in pregnant patients presenting to the ED from February 2011 to November 2015. Patients were randomized to no pelvic examination versus pelvic examination. Inclusion criteria were aged 18 years or older, English speaking, vaginal bleeding or lower abdominal pain, positive β-human chorionic gonadotropin result, and less than 16-week intrauterine pregnancy by ultrasonography. Thirty-day record review and follow-up call assessed for composite morbidity endpoints (unscheduled return, subsequent admission, emergency procedure, transfusion, infection, and alternate source of symptoms). Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess patient satisfaction and throughput times.

RESULTS

Only 202 (of a planned 720) patients were enrolled, despite extension of the study enrollment period. The composite morbidity outcome was experienced at similar rates in the intervention (no pelvic examination) and control (pelvic examination) groups (19.6% versus 22.0%; difference -2.4%; 90% confidence interval [CI] -11.8% to 7.1%). Patients in the intervention group were less likely to report feeling uncomfortable or very uncomfortable during the visit (11.2% versus 23.7%; difference -12.5; 95% CI -23.0% to -2.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was only a small difference between the percentage of patients experiencing the composite morbidity endpoint in the 2 study groups (2.4%), the resulting 90% CI was too wide to conclude equivalence. This may have been due to insufficient power. Patients assigned to the pelvic examination group reported feeling uncomfortable more frequently.

Junte-se à nossa
página do facebook

O mais completo banco de dados de ervas medicinais apoiado pela ciência

  • Funciona em 55 idiomas
  • Curas herbais apoiadas pela ciência
  • Reconhecimento de ervas por imagem
  • Mapa GPS interativo - marcar ervas no local (em breve)
  • Leia publicações científicas relacionadas à sua pesquisa
  • Pesquise ervas medicinais por seus efeitos
  • Organize seus interesses e mantenha-se atualizado com as notícias de pesquisa, testes clínicos e patentes

Digite um sintoma ou doença e leia sobre ervas que podem ajudar, digite uma erva e veja as doenças e sintomas contra os quais ela é usada.
* Todas as informações são baseadas em pesquisas científicas publicadas

Google Play badgeApp Store badge