Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796771›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

P L Martin-Hirsch, E Paraskevaidis, H Kitchener

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02669459 (A Randomized, Single Blinded Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Imiquimod in Women With Residual/Recurrent Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02669459 phase3unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized, Single Blinded Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Imiquimod in Women With Residual/Recurrent Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) After Previous Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorErasmus Medical CenterRan2016 to 2020Enrolled433ConditionsCervical Intraepithelial NeoplasiaArmsImiquimod, LLETZ
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

P L Martin-HirschUniversity Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Whitworth Park, Manchester, UK, M13 0JH.
E Paraskevaidis
H Kitchener
Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt. Mary’s Hospital · ZAUniversity Hospital of Ioannina · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCervical intra-epithelial neoplasia is treated by local ablation or lower morbidity excision techniques. Choice of treatment depends on the severity of the disease. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of alternative surgical treatments for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group trials register and MEDLINE up to July 1997. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of alternative surgical treatments in women with cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and two reviewers abstracted data independently. MAIN

resultsTwenty-three trials were included. Seven surgical techniques were tested in various comparisons. No significant difference in eradication of disease was shown, other than between laser ablation and loop excision. This was based on one trial where the quality of randomisation was doubtful. Large loop excision of the transformation zone appeared to provide the most reliable specimens for histology. Morbidity was lower than with laser conisation, although all five trials did not provide data for every outcome. There were not enough data to assess the effect on morbidity compared with laser ablation. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe evidence suggests that there is no obviously superior surgical technique for treating cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia.

Indexed as

ConizationCryosurgeryFemaleHumansLaser TherapyUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID10796771
OpenAlexW4211114131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.