Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#21 Does Lubricant reduce the adequacy of the PAP test?

Does the use of small amount of water soluble lubricant on the speculum reduce the adequacy of the PAP test?

A small amount of water-soluble lubricant on a speculum does not reduce the quality of the PAP test and probably does not affect microbiologic results. Adequacy of liquid-based PAP tests may be minimally affected or not at all.  

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

The largest randomized controlled trial (RCT)1: 2,906 patients.  
  • Water soluble lubricant on speculum versus tap water. 
  • No difference in quality of cytology. 
Four smaller RCTs:  
  • 70 to 400 patients: No difference in PAP test adequacy.2-5 
  • Two investigated and found pain scores significantly lower in the lubricant group4,5 (example, mean score on visual analogue scale 1.4 in the lubricant group and 2.2 in the water group, p<0.01).4 
Quasi-randomized, 3,460 PAP tests.6 
  • No difference in PAP test adequacy. 
Conventional cervical cytology smears (glass slide) were used in most studies.1-3,5,6  A meta-analysis of these trials plus another quasi-RCT found no difference on PAP test adequacy or pain scores.7    Context:    
  • One study found “more than the usual amount of gel” could affect PAP test adequacy by applying an additional 1-1.5 cm ‘ribbon’ of gel directly to the cervical os before sampling.8   
    • Clinicians don’t do this, and it is not applicable to regular practice. 
  • One RCT assessed lubricant influence on liquid-based PAP tests and found no effect, although it may have been underpowered.5 
  • Two retrospective cohorts using liquid-based cytology found: 
    • More unsatisfactory smears when lubricant was used (4.3% versus 1.8%, p=0.01).9 
    • Obscuring material causing misinterpretation of PAP results on 0.4%: ~half may have been related to lubricant use.10 
  • Two studies applied lubricant directly into liquid-based cervical cytology samples:11,12  
    • One reported reduced cell counts, but impact on adequacy was not assessed/reported.11 
    • The second demonstrated no impact on liquid-based PAP test outcomes.12 
  • One RCT also examined if lubricant affected testing for Chlamydia and found no effect after 5,535 samples.6 (Gonorrhea too uncommon to assess.) 
    • A laboratory study demonstrated that gel mixed with Chlamydia and Gonnorrhea cultures did not impact plating or diagnosis.13   
reviewed dec 6 2017 by ricky

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#363 Making a difference in indifference? Medications for apathy in dementia

In patients with dementia, how safe and effective are stimulants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics for treating apathy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#362 Facing the Evidence in Acne, Part I: Oral contraceptives and spironolactone in females

How effective are combined oral contraceptives (COC) and spironolactone for treating acne of at least mild-moderate severity in females?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#361 Preventing RSV Infections in Infants

How safe and effective are monoclonal antibodies to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections in infants?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP
  • G. Michael Allan MD CCFP
  • Noah Ivers MD CCFP

1. Amies AM, Miller L, Lee SK, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100:889-92.

2. Harer WB, Valenzuela G Jr, Lebo D. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100:887–8.

3. Gilson M, Desai A, Cardoza-Favarato G, et al. Am Board Fam Med. 2006; 39:340–4.

4. Hill DA, Lamvu G. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 119(2 Pt 1):227-31.

5. Uygur D, Guler T, Yayci E, et al. J Am board Fam Med. 2012; 25(6):798-804.

6. Griffith WF, Stuart GS, Gluck KL, et al. Contraception. 2005; 72:60–4.

7. Pergialiotis V, Vlachos DG, Rodolakis A, et al. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2015;19(1):55-61.

8. Charoenkwan K, Ninunanahaeminda K, Khunamornpong S, et al. Acta Cytol. 2008; 52:654-8.

9. Köşüş A, Köşüş N, Duran M, et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 285(6):1599-602.

10. AbdullGaffar B, Kamal MO, Khalid M, et al. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010; 14(1):22-8.

11. Holton T, Smith D, Terry M, et al. Cytopathology. 2008; 19:236-43.

12. Hathaway JK, Pathak PK, Maney R. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107:66–70.

13. Kozakis L, Vuddamalay J, Munday P. Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Jun; 82(3):263-4.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.