ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2021
The concordance between colposcopic biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedures in patients with known smear cytology and human papillomavirus results.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative hematological parameters do not predict lesion severity or recurrence in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a retrospective cohort study.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of MCM3 in ThinPrep Samples of Patients with Cervical Preinvasive Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Cervical Cytology and Histology Correlation as an Analytic Quality Assurance Exercise: Experience from an Accredited Cytology Laboratory.Journal of cytologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the concordance between colposcopic biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) methods to diagnose cervical pre-invasive lesions and cervical cancer, and to calculate the low and high prediction rates of lesions for both methods. Methods: A total of 241 patients who underwent LEEP after colposcopic biopsy for different indications and also known cervical cytology and human papillomavirus test results were included in the study. Clinical variables such as age, gravida, parity, menopausal status, smoking, endocervical curettage results, and surgical margins were recorded. Results: The total concordance between colposcopic biopsy and LEEP was 41.9%. The rates of finding a more serious lesion than in colposcopic biopsy with LEEP (underestimation) for negative, Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) 1, CIN 2, and CIN 3 were calculated as 100%, 12.8%, 14.8%, and 3.9%, respectively. Rates of finding a less serious lesion than detected in colposcopic biopsy with LEEP (overestimation) for CIN 1, CIN 2, and CIN 3, cervical carcinoma were calculated as 56.4%, 33.3%, 3.9%, and 0%, respectively. Underestimation was seen in a total of 28 patients, and overestimation was present in 113 patients. Parity was found to be the only associated factor that affected the final diagnosis for high-grade lesions in univariate logistic regression analysis (odds ratio=1.234, 95% confidence interval: 1.005-1.514). Conclusion: Discrepancies between colposcopically directed punch biopsy and subsequent histopathologic LEEP findings are common. New methods to reduce the inconsistency between colposcopic biopsy and LEEP are necessary to prevent patients from being under or over treated.
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.