ArticleHippokratia
Risk factors related to recurrence after surgical excision procedure for cervical dysplasia.
Article in Hippokratia. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to identify the risk factors of recurrence following surgical excisional procedures for cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with cervical pathology treated surgically over seven years. All patients with surgical interventions of the cervix were recorded and analyzed according to the recurrence following their primary treatment. We utilized the Chi-square test and the multivariate regression analysis to identify recurrence risk factors. We also employed the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for disease recurrence. Results: In total, 83 patients were reported; 81 (97.6 %) were treated with loop electrosurgical excision, and two (2.4 %) with cold knife conization. The histopathological results of the treatment approach showed one case (1.2 %) of low-grade intraepithelial lesions, 70 (84.4 %) high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), five (6 %) with IA1, and two (2.4 %) with IA2, cervical cancer, while in five patients (6 %) the results were negative for cervical pathology. Recurrence was diagnosed in 23 cases (27.7 %), and HSIL was diagnosed in 10 patients (12 %). The median time of recurrence was 11.6 months. Positive endocervical margins [odds ratio (OR): 52.478; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 8.315-331.203; p <0.001], excision of the cone in multiple specimens (OR: 8.793; 95 % CI: 1.854-41.693; p =0.006), and depth of cone less than one cm (OR: 21.225; 95 % CI: 3.176-141.863; p =0.002) were identified as independent risk factors for recurrence. Conclusions: Positive endocervical margins, multiple loop passes, and depth of the cone less than one cm were the most significant risk factors for recurrence. HIPPOKRATIA 2023, 27 (4):132-140.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39372323PMC11451503What 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.