ArticleJournal of registry management2013
Treatment patterns for cervical carcinoma in situ in Michigan, 1998-2003.
Article in Journal of registry management, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Viruses and Skin Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Treatment of cervical precancers: back to basics.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize population-level surgical treatment patterns for cervical carcinoma in situ (CIS) reported to the Michigan Cancer Surveillance Program (MCSP), and to inform data collection strategies.
methodsAll cases of cervical carcinoma in situ (CIS) (including cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ [AIS]) reported to the MCSP during 1998-2003 were identified. First course of treatment (ablative procedure, cone biopsy, loop electrosurgical excisional procedure [LEEP], hysterectomy, unspecified surgical treatment, no surgical treatment, unknown if surgically treated) was described by histology, race, and age at diagnosis.
resultsOf 17,022 cases of cervical CIS, 82.8 percent were squamous CIS, 3 percent AIS/adenosquamous CIS, and 14.2 percent unspecified/other CIS. Over half (54.7 percent) of cases were diagnosed in women under age 30. Excisional treatments (LEEP, 32.3 percent and cone biopsy, 17.3 percent) were most common, though substantial proportions had no reported treatment (17.8 percent) or unknown treatment (21.1 percent). Less common were hysterectomy (7.2 percent) and ablative procedures (2.6 percent). LEEP was the most common treatment for squamous cases, while hysterectomy was the most treatment for AIS/adenosquamous CIS cases. Across histologic types, a sizeable proportion of women diagnosed ≤30 years of age underwent excision, either LEEP (20 percent-38.7 percent) or cone biopsy (13.7 percent-44 percent).
conclusionDespite evidence suggesting it may be safer and equally effective as excision, ablation was rarely used for treating cervical squamous CIS. These population-based data indicate some notable differences in treatment by histology and age at diagnosis, with observed patterns appearing consistent with consensus guidelines in place at the time of study, but favoring more aggressive procedures. Future data collection strategies may need to validate treatment information, including the large proportion of no or unknown treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24002133PMC4515306W52290671What 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.