Physical Examination in Ectopic Pregnancy

Date First Published:
June 23, 2005
Last Updated:
July 22, 2005
Report by:
Emma Shawkat, 4th Year Medical Student (Manchester Royal Infirmary)
Three-Part Question:
When a [woman of childbearing age presents to A&E with vaginal bleeding] is [the physical examination beneficial] in [diagnosing/ruling out an ectopic pregnancy]?
Clinical Scenario:
A 26 year old woman presents to accident and emergency with vaginal bleeding. She has a positive pregnancy tes. You suspect she may have an ectopic pregnancy and wonder if any findings on examination are can help rule in/out this diagnosis?
Search Strategy:
Medline 1966-06/05 using the OVID Interface
Embase 1980-06/05
CINAHL 1982-06/05
The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005
Search Details:
({[physical examination.mp. or exp Physical Examination or examination.mp or medical examination.mp] AND [tubal pregnancy.mp or exp PREGNANCY, TUBAL or ectopic pregnancy.mp or exp PREGNANCY, ECTOPIC or abdominal pregnancy.mp or exp PREGNANCY, ABDOMINAL or extrauterine pregnancy.mp]} LIMIT to humans and english language)

Cochrane 'ectopic pregnancy' AND 'examination'
Outcome:
435 papers were found using medline, of which 4 were relevant. No additional papers were found using the other databases.
Relevant Paper(s):
Study Title Patient Group Study type (level of evidence) Outcomes Key results Study Weaknesses
Predictive value of history and physical examination in patients with suspected ectopic pregnancy Dart RG. Kaplan B. Varaklis K 1999 UNITED STATES Consecutive patients from 1 Aug 1991-31 Aug, who had abdominal pain or vaginal bleeding and a positive beta-human chorionic gonadotropin level Prospective observational study Findings that increase risk of ectopic pregnancy Odds ratio (95% CI): Pain intensity mod-severe 3.4 (1.6-7.1), Pain location lateral 2.2 (1.2-4.0), Pain quality sharp 2,0 (1.0-4.0), Cervical motion tenderness 3.3 (1.6-6.6), Lateral or bilat pelvic tenderness 2.4 (1.3-4.4) Lateral or bilat abdo tenderness 2.0 (1.1-3.7), Positive peritoneal signs 7.9 (3.1-20.0) Only 57 patients with an ectopic pregnancy
Findings that decrease risk of ectopic pregnancy Odds ratio (95% CI): Pain midline 0.31 (0.14-0.66) and uterine size >8 weeks 0.42 (0.19-0.96)
Hx and findings not predictive of ectopic pregnancy Odds ratio (95% CI): Passed tissue 0.66 (0.19-2.1), Os open 0.48 (0.14-1.46), Bleeding: none to mild 1.2 (0.6-2.2), Pulse >100 beats/min 1.4 (0.6-3.0), Systolic BP <100mm Hg 0.33 (0.02-2.4), Adnexal mass 2.2 (0.63-6.6)
Emergency department diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy Stovall TG. Kellerman AL. Ling FW. Buster JE 1990 UNITED STATES All ED patients with a positive urine pregnancy test treated between 1 Jan-31 Dec, 1988 Prospective, consecutive case series IUP (n=349) Vaginal bleeding 16%,* Adnexal tenderness 14.3%,* Adnexal mass 7.4% & Cervical motion tenderness 13%.* *p<0.05
Unruptured ectopic pregnancy (n=100) Vaginal bleeding 39%,* Adnexal tenderness 28%,* Adnexal mass 4%,*& Cervical motion tenderness 25%.* *p<0.05
Ectopic pregnancy: prospective study with improved diagnostic accuracy Kaplan BC. Dart RG. Moskos M. Kuligowska E. Chun B. Adel Hamid M. Northern K. Schmidt J. Kharwadkar A 1996 UNITED STATES 481 consecutive pregnant patients who presented to an urban ED with first-trimester abdominal pain or vaginal bleeding
History, physical examination findings, quantitative beta-hCG values, sonography findings, surgical findings, and final diagnosis were collected after patient enrollment in the study		 Prospective, consecutive case study Examination findings Adnexal tenderness: 64%, Cervical motion tenderness 43% Did not look at many findings
Physical examination Sensitivity: 64%
History and physical examination to estimate the risk of ectopic pregnancy: validation of a clinical prediction model Buckley RG. King KJ. Disney JD. Gorman JD. Klausen JH 1999, Nov UNITED STATES All hemodynamically stable, first-trimester patients with abdominal pain or vaginal bleeding who presented to a military teaching hospital emergency department underwent follow-up until an outcome of intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or EP was established Prospective cohort High risk Peritoneal irritation on abdominal examintaion or definite cervical motion tenderness: Senitivity(95% CI) 32% (17%-49%), specificity 95% (92%-97%), PPV 32% (17%-49%), NPV 95% (92%-97%), Positive likelihood ratio 6.1, Negative likelihood ratio 0.7 There are a few limitations:
Protocol instruced physicians to code findings before obtaining an US or other data, this might have introduced classification bias
Only included symptomatic patients
Intermediate risk No fetal heart tones by handheld doppler AND tissue visible at the cervical os AND pain (other than midline suprapubic cramping or tenderness (any cervical motion tenderness, uterine or adnexal tenderness): Sensitivity (95% CI) 100% (84%-100%), specificity 28% (23%-32%), PPV 7.1% (5%-11%), NPV 100% (97%-100%), Positive likelihood ratio 1.4, Negative likelihood ratio 0
Low risk Patients not meeting high or intermediate risk criteria
Author Commentary:
There are a number of findings that can help determine if a woman has high or low risk of having an ectopic pregnancy, but there was no sinlge finding or a combination of findings that could give a definite diagnosis.
Bottom Line:
Physical examination is not sensitive enough to give a definite diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy.
References:
  1. Dart RG. Kaplan B. Varaklis K. Predictive value of history and physical examination in patients with suspected ectopic pregnancy
  2. Stovall TG. Kellerman AL. Ling FW. Buster JE. Emergency department diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy
  3. Kaplan BC. Dart RG. Moskos M. Kuligowska E. Chun B. Adel Hamid M. Northern K. Schmidt J. Kharwadkar A. Ectopic pregnancy: prospective study with improved diagnostic accuracy
  4. Buckley RG. King KJ. Disney JD. Gorman JD. Klausen JH. History and physical examination to estimate the risk of ectopic pregnancy: validation of a clinical prediction model