Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29686397›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2018

Influence of age on histologic outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia during observational management: results from large cohort, systematic review, meta-analysis.

Christine Bekos, Richard Schwameis, Georg Heinze, Marina Gärner, Christoph Grimm, Elmar Joura, Reinhard Horvat, Stephan Polterauer, Mariella Polterauer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Role of theFrontiers in oncology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christine BekosMedical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Viennna, Austria.
Richard SchwameisMedical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Viennna, Austria.
Georg HeinzeCenter for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Viennna, Austria.
Marina GärnerMedical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Viennna, Austria.
Christoph GrimmMedical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Viennna, Austria.
Elmar JouraMedical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Viennna, Austria.
Reinhard HorvatMedical University of Vienna, Department of Pathology, Viennna, Austria.
Stephan PolterauerMedical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Viennna, Austria. stephan.polterauer@meduniwien.ac.at.
Mariella PolterauerMedical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Viennna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim of this study was to investigate the histologic outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) during observational management. Consecutive women with histologically verified CIN and observational management were included. Histologic findings of initial and follow-up visits were collected and persistence, progression and regression rates at end of observational period were assessed. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was performed. In 783 women CIN I, II, and III was diagnosed by colposcopically guided biopsy in 42.5%, 26.6% and 30.9%, respectively. Younger patients had higher rates of regression (p < 0.001) and complete remission (< 0.001) and lower rates of progression (p = 0.003). Among women aged < 25, 25 < 30, 30 < 35, 35 < 40 years, and > 40 years, regression rates were 44.7%, 33.7%, 30.9%, 27.3%, and 24.9%, respectively. Pooled analysis of published data showed similar results. Multivariable analysis showed that with each five years of age, the odds for regression reduced by 21% (p < 0.001) independently of CIN grade (p < 0.001), and presence of HPV high-risk infection (p < 0.001). Patient's age has a considerable influence on the natural history of CIN - independent of CIN grade and HPV high-risk infection. Observational management should be considered for selected young patients with CIN.

Indexed as

AdultAge FactorsBiopsyColposcopyDisease ManagementDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansObservational Studies as TopicPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29686397
PMCPMC5913272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.