ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2024
The top hat procedure does not impact the management of women treated by LEEP in cervical cancer screening.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe Top-hat results and their association with margin status and disease relapse in a referral facility in Brazil. Methods: A retrospective study of 440 women submitted to LEEP to treat HSIL, in which 80 cases were complemented immediately by the top hat procedure (Top-hat Group - TH). TH Group was compared to women not submitted to Top-hat (NTH). The sample by convenience included all women that underwent LEEP from January 2017 to July 2020. The main outcome was the histological result. Other variables were margins, age, transformation zone (TZ), depth, and relapse. The analysis used the Chi-square test and logistic regression. Results: The TH Group was predominantly 40 and older (NTH 23.1% vs. TH 65.0%, p<0.001). No difference was found in having CIN2/CIN3 as the final diagnosis (NTH 17.0% vs. TH 21.3%, p=0.362), or in the prevalence of relapse (NTH 12.0% vs. TH 9.0%, p=0.482). Of the 80 patients submitted to top hat, the histological result was CIN2/CIN3 in eight. A negative top hat result was related to a negative endocervical margin of 83.3%. A CIN2/CIN3 Top-hat result was related to CIN2/CIN3 margin in 62.5% (p=0.009). The chance of obtaining a top hat negative result was 22.4 times higher (2.4-211.0) when the endocervical margin was negative and 14.5 times higher (1.5-140.7) when the ectocervical margin was negative. Conclusion: The top hat procedure did not alter the final diagnosis of LEEP. No impact on relapse was observed. The procedure should be avoided in women of reproductive age.
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.