ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Cervical cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Manchester procedure: A systematic review of recurrence, perioperative measures, and financial cost, and a scoping review of sexual dysfunction, gynecologic cancer, and obstetric outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Patient Risk Factors for Incidental Pathology After Uterovaginal Surgery for Apical Prolapse: Systematic Review and Global Expert Consensus Statements.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- A Systematic Review (and Meta-Analysis) and Global Expert Consensus Statements (U-POP): The Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Postoperative Outcomes of the Manchester-Fothergill Procedure: Cervical Cytology Adequacy and Transformation Zone Accessibility: A Prospective Cohort Study.International urogynecology journal · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe Manchester procedure is a successful operation to treat uterine prolapse. However, the influence on cervical cancer remains unknown. We hypothesized a lower risk of cervical cancer after the Manchester procedure.
methodsWe included all Danish women undergoing the Manchester procedure during 1977-2018 (N = 23,935). Women undergoing anterior colporrhaphy (N = 51,008) were included as references due to comparable health-seeking behaviors. The study cohort is as previously described. We assessed the risk of cervical cancer mortality after the Manchester procedure versus anterior colporrhaphy using cumulated incidence plots and Cox hazard regressions. We applied Fisher's exact test to compare the distribution of histological subtypes after the operations.
resultsGenerally, few women were diagnosed with cervical cancer (0.1% after Manchester procedure and 0.2% after anterior colporrhaphy). After the Manchester procedure, the risk of cervical cancer was reduced (HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.94]). Furthermore, we found a slightly reduced risk of overall death (HR 0.96 [95% 0.94-0.99]), but no association regarding death due to cervical cancer (HR 0.66 [95% 0.34-1.25]). The distribution of histological subtypes was not changed.
conclusionsWomen undergoing the Manchester procedure are at lower risk of being diagnosed with cervical cancer, while the risk of cancer specific mortality is unchanged compared to women undergoing anterior colporrhaphy. Based on this study, we cannot recommend that women exit ordinary screening programs for human papillomavirus/cervical dysplasia after a Manchester procedure.
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.