ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2013
Three-step approach versus see-and-treat approach in patients with cytological abnormalities.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The overtreatment rate, medical cost and psychological affection of see-and-treat versus three-step approaches in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- The 'see-and-treat' approach in the treatment of preneoplastic cervical lesions.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026Article
- See-and-Treat Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure for High-Grade Cervical Cytology: Are We Overtreating?Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the results of see-and-treat procedure with the classical three-step procedure in terms of initial cytology and LEEP reports. We searched the pathology charts of patients that had LEEP were searched retrospectively and then they were divided into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of a cervical biopsy before LEEP. There were 116 patients in the study. Of the patients with ASCUS/LSIL cytology and a positive cervical biopsy 48.4% had CIN 2-3 at LEEP, in contrast only 19% of the patients without a prior cervical biopsy had CIN 2-3 at LEEP (p=0.031); there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 procedures in patients with a HSIL and ASC-H smear result (p=0.726 and p=1.0 respectively). In conclusion patients with ASC-H and HSIL cytology see-and-treat approach seems more advantageous, avoids delay in treatment, noncompliance and risk of skipping lesions at biopsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23724157PMC3664005W1586552970What OpenQuestion holds
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.