Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31912671›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2020

Pathologic discrepancies between colposcopy-directed biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure of the uterine cervix in women with cytologic high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions.

Se Ik Kim, Se Jeong Kim, Dong Hoon Suh, Kidong Kim, Jae Hong No, Yong Beom Kim

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Se Ik KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9790-6735
Se Jeong KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fertility Center of CHA Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1879-3451
Dong Hoon SuhDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4312-966X
Kidong KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9254-6024
Jae Hong NoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. jhno@snu.ac.kr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2389-6757
Yong Beom KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1196-369X
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital · KRCHA University · KRSeoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate pathologic discrepancies between colposcopy-directed biopsy (CDB) of the cervix and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) in women with cytologic high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs).

methodsWe retrospectively identified 297 patients who underwent both CDB and LEEP for HSILs in cervical cytology between 2015 and 2018, and compared their pathologic results. Considering the LEEP to be the gold standard, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of CDB for identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grades 2 and 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cancer (HSIL+). We also performed age subgroup analyses.

resultsAmong the study population, 90.9% (270/297) had pathologic HSIL+ using the LEEP. The diagnostic performance of CDB for identifying HSIL+ was as follows: sensitivity, 87.8%; specificity, 59.3%; balanced accuracy, 73.6%; positive predictive value, 95.6%; and negative predictive value, 32.7%. Thirty-three false negative cases of CDB included CIN2,3 (n=29) and cervical cancer (n=4). The pathologic HSIL+ rate in patients with HSIL- by CDB was 67.3% (33/49). CDB exhibited a significant difference in the diagnosis of HSIL+ compared to LEEP in all patients (p<0.001). In age subgroup analyses, age groups <35 years and 35-50 years showed good agreement with the entire data set (p=0.496 and p=0.406, respectively), while age group ≥50 years did not (p=0.036).

conclusionA significant pathologic discrepancy was observed between CDB and LEEP results in women with cytologic HSILs. The diagnostic inaccuracy of CDB increased in those ≥50 years of age.

Indexed as

ColposcopyElectrosurgeryAdenocarcinoma in SituAdultBiopsyFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRepublic of KoreaRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySquamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the CervixUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsColposcopyConizationEarly Detection of CancerHigh-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial LesionsPapanicolaou TestUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31912671
PMCPMC7044015
OpenAlexW2969778743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.