ArticleJournal of lower genital tract disease2016
High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia After Negative Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure.
Article in Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 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
- Pathological changes of high-risk human papillomavirus-positive cervical lesions after surgery and analysis of risk factors for persistent positivity.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Performance of a six-methylation-marker assay in predicting LEEP specimen histology results of cervical HSIL patients: a retrospective study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- To cut or not to cut - that is the question: a comparative analysis of long-term follow-up after complete and incomplete electroconization of the cervix due to high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- A study on the correlation between the prognosis of HPV infection and lesion recurrence after cervical conization.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Absence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in conization specimens from patients with colposcopic biopsy-confirmed high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Retrospective study of 1695 cases.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Negative loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) following cervical biopsy diagnosis of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the prevalence and correlates of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) after a negative loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), performed for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cervical cytology.
methodsOne hundred six women from our university-based colposcopy clinic underwent LEEP between 2007 and 2014. Negative LEEP was defined as CIN1 or less. Persistence/recurrence estimates were calculated by treatment (see-and-treat vs 3-step conventional strategy-cervical cytology, colposcopic biopsy, LEEP) and LEEP results (negative vs positive) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictors of CIN2+ after a negative LEEP were examined by multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.
resultsOverall, the prevalence of CIN2+ after a negative LEEP for HSIL was 14%. Persistence/recurrence of CIN2+ was similar between women with a negative and positive see-and-treat LEEP (25% vs 15%) and those with a negative or positive 3-step conventional LEEP (7% vs 22%) (log-rank, P = 0.58). Positive LEEP margin was more common among women with a positive LEEP (53.7% see-and-treat vs 42.6% conventional) compared with a negative result (0% see-and-treat vs 3.7% conventional, P < 0.0001). The risk of CIN2+ after a negative LEEP did not differ by management strategy (log-rank, P = 0.85) or LEEP result (log-rank, P = 0.58). In multivariate analysis, correlates of persistent/recurrent CIN2+ included older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.09; P = 0.0003), history of previous LEEP (aOR, 8.99; P < 0.0001), and positive LEEP margin (aOR, 13.56; P = 0.0005).
conclusionsA negative LEEP does not allow less stringent surveillance, as CIN2+ risk is similar to that after CIN2+ is found in the LEEP specimen, whether the specimen was obtained by see-and-treat or conventional 3-step approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.