ArticleBMC cancer2024
Focused ultrasound versus the loop electrosurgical excision procedure to treat women with cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions under 40: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of focused ultrasound for HPV clearance and cervical LSIL treatment: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Focused ultrasound treatment of cervical human papillomavirus infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions: A narrative review.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of focused ultrasound (FUS) and the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) for the treatment of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs) among women of reproductive age.
methodsCase records of patients aged < 40 years who were treated for cervical HSILs using either FUS or LEEP from September 1, 2020 to May 31, 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were followed up for cure, recurrence, human papillomavirus (HPV) clearance, and complications within 1 year of treatment. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were determined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to analyze the association between disease evidence or HPV clearance and treatment modalities or other covariates.
resultsOf the 1,054 women who underwent FUS or LEEP, 225 met our selection criteria. Among the selected women, 101 and 124 received FUS and LEEP, respectively. There was no significant difference between the FUS and LEEP groups in the cure rate during the 3-6 months of follow-up (89.11% vs. 94.35%, P = 0.085) and recurrence rate during the 6-12 months follow-up (2.22% vs. 1.71%, P = 0.790). Both groups exhibited enhanced cumulative HPV clearance rates; however, the rates were not significantly different between the FUS and LEEP groups (74.23% vs. 82.79%, P = 0.122 during the 3-6 months follow-up; 84.95% vs. 89.17%, P = 0.359 during the 6-12 months follow-up). Furthermore, the incidence of complications caused by the FUS and LEEP techniques was comparable (5.0% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.818).
conclusionsWe found that FUS and LEEP have similar efficacy, safety, and reliability in treating women (aged < 40 years) with HSILs.
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.