ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023
How endocervicoscopy can impact obstetric outcomes in women undergoing LEEP for CIN2 + : a retrospective cohort analysis.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the impact of preoperative endocervicoscopy on obstetric outcomes and complications in women undergoing LEEP for CIN2 + .
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study carried out between October 2012 and April 2018. All women had undergone cervical length measurement at T0 (before LEEP), T1 (6 months after LEEP), and T2 (at 20 weeks of pregnancy) through transvaginal ultrasound examination after LEEP for CIN2 + . A total of 528 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria and contributed to the final analysis: 288 had undergone endocervicoscopy before the excisional procedure (Group A), while the remaining 240 (Group B) did not.
resultsPatients who did not undergo endocervicoscopy showed a greater amount of tissue excised at LEEP compared to those of Group A (6.7% vs 31.9% in Group A and B, p < 0.01, respectively). A statistically relevant difference was detected in the lesion margins involvement: negative in 93.8% in Group A compared to 65.6% in Group B. The cervicometry before the treatment resulted in similar between the two groups, while a statistically significant difference was noted after 6 months (37.5 ± 2.9 mm in Group A vs 35.1 ± 3.8 mm in Group B, p < 0.01) and at 20th week pregnancy (36.9 ± 5.3 mm in Group A vs 33.5 ± 5.6 mm in Group B, p < 0.01). The number of pregnancies after LEEP as well as the difference in the elapsed time (in months) did not result in a statistical significance between the two groups. The threatened preterm labor (TPL) and the threatened miscarriage showed a statistically significant difference in incidence between the two groups (4,2% and 4.2% in Group A vs 15.3% and 25% in Group B, p < 0.01, respectively).
conclusionEndocervicoscopy reduces the size of the LEEP sample and in particular its depth, saving healthy cervical tissue, and guarantees the total eradication of the lesion as the resection margins are negative in almost all cases, allowing for a reduction of the rate of TPL and threatened miscarriage in women with CIN2 + , especially with Type 2 or 3 cervical squamocolumnar junction (SCJ).
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.