ArticleJournal of mid-life health
Office Cervicoscopy versus Stationary Colposcopy in Suspicious Cervix: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of mid-life health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic discrepancy between colposcopy and vaginoscopy: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- The effectiveness of cold-knife conization (CKC) for post-menopausal women with cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- Retraction: Office Cervicoscopy versus Stationary Colposcopy in Suspicious Cervix: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2021-01-21Duplication of/in Article ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveThe objective of the study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy and doctor satisfaction of small caliber office cervicoscopy versus stationary colposcopy in diagnosis of ectocervical as well as endocervical lesions in women clinically presented with suspicious cervix. PATIENTS AND
methodsEligible 112 cases with clinically suspicious cervix were randomized into Group A (56 cases) and Group B (56 cases) who were subjected to small caliber office cervicoscopy and stationary colposcopy, respectively. The outcome was the diagnostic accuracy and safety of both tools for detection of ectocervical and endocervical cervical lesions.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding parity, previous abortion, age at marriage, duration of marriage, and age at menarche and menopause. On unaided naked eye examination of the cervix (UNEE), there were no statistically significant differences between both groups. Diagnostic indices were similar in both groups apart from the finding that office cervicoscopy was more sensitive for detection of endocervical abnormalities. Doctors were significantly more satisfied with stationary colposcopy than office cervicoscopy.
conclusionsOffice cervicoscopy is a good complementary tool added to stationary colposcopy for detection of cervical lesions in cases with suspicious cervix as an example of high-risk group for cervical cancer. Due to its small caliber, cervicoscopy offers a better evaluation of the endocervical canal, especially in cases of Type 2 and 3 transformation zone with a possibility of examination of the endometrial cavity.
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.