阴道窥器插入使用润滑剂对巴氏涂片不满意率的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Mohammad Roodsarabi, Parvaneh Mirabi, Zeynab Farhadi, Mouloud Agajani Delavar, Hajar Pasha
{"title":"阴道窥器插入使用润滑剂对巴氏涂片不满意率的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mohammad Roodsarabi, Parvaneh Mirabi, Zeynab Farhadi, Mouloud Agajani Delavar, Hajar Pasha","doi":"10.1186/s12905-026-04674-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lubricant 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9204,"journal":{"name":"BMC Women's Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13644278/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of using lubricant for vaginal speculum insertion on the rate of unsatisfactory results of Pap smear: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Roodsarabi, Parvaneh Mirabi, Zeynab Farhadi, Mouloud Agajani Delavar, Hajar Pasha\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12905-026-04674-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lubricant 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Women's Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13644278/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Women's Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-026-04674-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Women's Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-026-04674-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:宫颈癌每年影响约62万名妇女,仍然是癌症死亡的主要原因,特别是在资源匮乏的地区。本荟萃分析评估阴道镜插入时使用润滑剂是否会影响巴氏涂片检查不满意的细胞学结果。方法:系统检索WoS/ISI、PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、谷歌Scholar、Cochrane等数据库。随机对照试验和队列研究按照Cochrane手册的建议进行单独的亚组分析。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和Cochrane RoB 2工具评估质量;证据确定性通过GRADE评定。进行敏感性分析和发表偏倚评估(漏斗图、Egger检验)。结果:在2112条确定的记录中,14项研究包括18,681名女性(7757名润滑剂,10,924名对照组)符合纳入标准(Cohen’s Kappa = 0.79)。总的来说,水基润滑剂没有显著影响不满意的巴氏涂片率(OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.90-1.44; P = 0.280; I²= 38.74%)。亚组分析证实rct无显著影响(OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.58-1.16; P = 0.253; I²= 0%),而队列研究显示有增加的边缘趋势(OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.98-1.90; P = 0.062; I²= 59.98%)。观察到疼痛减轻的非显著趋势(SMD = - 0.77, 95% CI: -1.55 ~ 0.01; P = 0.054);然而,极端的异质性(I²= 94.21%)妨碍了可靠的解释。结论:基于中等确定性的随机对照试验证据,润滑剂的使用不会影响子宫颈抹片检查的充分性;临界队列趋势的确定性较低,应谨慎解释。疼痛证据不一致且高度异质性;没有关于患者舒适度的临床建议。有必要进行大规模标准化的随机对照试验,以检查LSIL/HSIL的检测。这些发现支持谨慎的指南考虑润滑油的使用,等待更高的确定性证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effect of using lubricant for vaginal speculum insertion on the rate of unsatisfactory results of Pap smear: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Cervical 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.

Methods: We 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.

Results: Of 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.

Conclusions: Lubricant 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Women's Health
BMC Women's Health OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
444
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Women''s Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the health and wellbeing of adolescent girls and women, with a particular focus on the physical, mental, and emotional health of women in developed and developing nations. The journal welcomes submissions on women''s public health issues, health behaviours, breast cancer, gynecological diseases, mental health and health promotion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书