ArticleJournal of lower genital tract disease2016
Trends in Colposcopy Volume: Where Do We Go From Here?
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- ASCCP Colposcopy Standards: Colposcopy Quality Improvement Recommendations for the United States.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2017Guideline
- Impact of management guidelines for abnormal cervical cytology on colposcopy procedure rates among young women.Gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a clinical prediction model for endocervical curettage decision-making in cervical lesions.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Colposcopy at a turning point.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2018Review
- Increased detection of precancerous cervical lesions with adjunctive dynamic spectral imaging.International journal of women's health · 2017Article
- Risk Factors of Positive Endocervical Curettage and Predictive Model Construction Based on Primary Human Papillomavirus Screening.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the change in colposcopy volume in light of recent guideline shifts, which target higher-risk women while limiting unnecessary procedures in low-risk women.
methodsAfter institutional review board approval, colposcopy clinic visits at a large-volume referral center from January 2010 to December 2015 were reviewed. All women diagnosed with abnormal cervical cytology who were referred and subsequently underwent colposcopic evaluation were included. Mean monthly and annual clinic volumes were calculated. Return visit proportions were compared using chi-square test. Negative binomial regression analysis was used to examine trends.
resultsThere were a total of 8722 colposcopy clinic visits between January 2010 and December 2015. Approximately 7395 visits (85%) were new patient visits, and 1327 visits (15%) were return visits. The percentage of return visits declined dramatically during the study period from 22.9% (2011) of total visits to 9.0% in 2015 (P < 0.001). Annual clinic volume ranged from 903 to 1884 with a mean monthly volume of 121.13 visits (SD, 42.1). Annual volume was highest in 2011 (n = 1884) and has since demonstrated a steady decline. In 2015, average monthly volume (75.3 visits) dropped to nearly one third of its peak 218 visits per month in July 2010.
conclusionsIn a large referral clinic that adheres to guideline-based screening and management recommendations, monthly colposcopy volume has declined dramatically with a reduction by two thirds compared with peak volume in 2010.
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.