ArticleAcademic pathology
Use of Pathology Data to Improve High-Value Treatment of Cervical Neoplasia.
Article in Academic pathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the Netherlands after referral for colposcopy.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2019Article
- The Value Proposition for Pathologists: A Population Health Approach.Academic pathologyArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the influence of pathology data to improve patient outcomes in the treatment of high-grade cervical neoplasia in a joint pathology and gynecology collaboration. Two of us (B.S.D. and M.D.) reviewed all cytology, colposcopy and surgical pathology results, patient history, and pregnancy outcomes from all patients with loop electrosurgical excision procedure specimens for a 33-month period (January 2011-September 2013). We used this to determine compliance to 2006 consensus guidelines for the performance of loop electrosurgical excision procedure and shared this information in 2 interprofessional and interdisciplinary educational interventions with Obstetrics/Gynecology and Pathology faculty at the end of September 2013. We simultaneously emphasized the new 2013 guidelines. During the postintervention period, we continued to provide follow-up using the parameters previously collected. Our postintervention data include 90 cases from a 27-month period (October 2013-December 2015). Our preintervention data include 331 cases in 33 months (average 10.0 per month) with 76% adherence to guidelines. Postintervention, there were 90 cases in 27 months (average 3.4 per month) and 96% adherence to the 2013 (more conservative) guidelines (
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.