ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Additional role of ECC in the detection and treatment of cervical HSIL.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a predictive model for the risk of endocervical curettage positivity.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Differential Analysis of Pregnancy Outcomes After Treatment of HIFU and LEEP in Patients with Cervical High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- The value of endocervical curettage for diagnosis of cervical precancers or worse at colposcopy of women with atypical glandular cells cytology.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To probe into the additional role of ECC in the detection of cervical HSIL. The primary objective was to risk-stratify HSIL patients according to ECC so as to provide clinical suggestions for subsequent treatment. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records for patients with HSIL. All patients underwent both ECC and cervical biopsy. According to the results of colposcopic targeted biopsy and ECC, the patients were divided into three groups: (1) ECC negative group (those whose colposcopic targeted biopsy indicated HSIL, but ECC indicated LSIL or chronic inflammation); (2) Only the ECC positive group (those whose ECC suggested HSIL, but colposcopic targeted biopsy showed LSIL or chronic inflammation); (3) ECC and biopsy positive group (those whose ECC and targeted biopsy were both HSIL). Chi-square test was used to analyze the differences of lesion residue and biopsy results after LEEP amongst the three groups. Results: A total of 1,146 medical records were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy of ECC combined with colposcopic targeted biopsy for HSIL was higher than that of colposcopic biopsy alone (72.43% vs. 67.54%). When ECC indicated HSIL, the coincidence rate of ECC combined with colposcopic targeted biopsy and the histological pathology of LEEP was 86.25%, and the proportion of residual lesions after LEEP was 41.43%. When ECC and targeted biopsy both indicated HSIL, HSIL or worse lesions were confirmed in 90.68% of patients after surgery. Of these, 10.77% were confirmed as cervical invasive carcinoma. Moreover, the positive rate of LEEP resection margin and postoperative ECC in these patients was 43.48%. Conclusion: ECC can improve the detection rate of cervical HSIL and reduce missed diagnosis. Also ECC can help clinicians predict the proportion of residual lesions after LEEP. This provides the gynecologists with a reference for the need to increase the depth of the procedure and the need to perform ECC for the residual cervical canal.
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.