The use of pelvic trainers in undergraduate teaching was evaluated, us
ing a questionnaire based on examination findings of a series of four
pelvic trainers by 20 medical students and 34 gynaecologists. The main
outcome measures were the ability to correctly identify pelvic findin
gs in the trainers, and the numbers of false positive findings. There
were two adnexal masses in two of the trainers. One was correctly iden
tified by 33 (14(70%) medical students and 19 (56%) doctors) in one tr
ainer, whereas the other was missed by 52 of 54 examiners. Prolapse wa
s missed by 41 of 54. The normal pelvis was correctly identified by 30
(16(80%) medical students and 20 (59%) doctors. There were 15 false p
ositive identifications of adnexal masses (6 by medical students and 9
by doctors) and 22 false positive identification of uterine enlargeme
nts (5 by medical students and 17 by doctors). The pelvic trainers wer
e of value in demonstrating the process of pelvic and speculum examina
tion. Some of the clinical conditions emulated were missed by most of
the gynaecologists, suggesting that they were not suitable for trainin
g students in abnormal findings. Although the figures were not statist
ically significant, there was a trend for qualified doctors rather tha
n medical students to make false positive findings.