ArticleCancers2020
Role of Colposcopy after Treatment for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.
Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- [An auxiliary diagnosis system for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia based on colposcopic images].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Colposcopy is often used in follow-up after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) despite its marked inter-observer variability and low sensitivity. Our objective was to assess the role of colposcopy in post-treatment follow-up in comparison to hrHPV (high-risk human papillomavirus) testing, cytology, and cone margin status. Altogether, 419 women treated for histological high-grade lesion (HSIL) with large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) attended colposcopy with cytology and hrHPV test at six months. Follow-up for recurrence of HSIL continued for 24 months. Colposcopy was considered positive if colposcopic impression was recorded as high grade and cytology if HSIL, ASC-H (atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude HSIL), or AGC-FN (atypical glandular cells, favor neoplasia) were present. Overall, 10 (10/419, 2.4%) recurrent HSIL cases were detected, 5 at 6 months and 5 at 12 months. Colposcopic impression was recorded at 407/419 6-month visits and was positive for 11/407 (2.7%). None of them had recurrent lesions, resulting in 0% sensitivity and 97% specificity for colposcopy. Sensitivity for the hrHPV test at 6 months was 100% and specificity 85%, for cytology 40% and 99%, and for margin status at treatment 60% and 82%, respectively. While the hrHPV test is highly sensitive in predicting recurrence after local treatment for CIN, colposcopy in an unselected population is not useful in follow-up after treatment of CIN.
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.