ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
Factors associated with willingness to perform expedited excisional treatment for patients at high risk for cervical precancer.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2025. 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: The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines prefer expedited treatment, defined as proceeding to excisional treatment without first performing colposcopic biopsy, for patients with screening results indicating a high risk of cervical precancer. In this mixed methods study, we explored clinician attitudes toward expedited treatment. Methods: In 2021, a national sample of 671 clinicians who performed colposcopy completed surveys; a subset (n = 41) of clinicians who performed colposcopy and/or directed patient treatment completed qualitative interviews. Results: Among 671 colposcopists, 25.7 % were currently performing expedited treatment, 50.8% were not currently using expedited treatment but were willing to adopt this change, and 23.6% were not willing to perform expedited treatment. Binomial regression analyses indicated that internal medicine and family medicine clinicians (compared to Obstetrician-Gynecologists), and those practicing in academic medal centers (compared to private practice) had higher odds of currently performing expedited treatment; internal and family medicine clinicians also reported higher odds of being willing to adopt this change. Qualitative interviews highlighted benefits including improved cancer prevention among older patients, reduced loss to follow-up, reduction of time and expense for patients, and allowing shared decision-making. Concerns expressed related to future pregnancy complications, lack of available excisional treatment services (e.g., LEEP), patient preference, avoiding over- and under-treatment, and using biopsy results to plan excisional procedures. Conclusions: Approximately 25 % of colposcopists are currently performing expedited treatment, and an additional 50 % would be willing to adopt this practice for high-risk patients. Improving access to expedited treatment for appropriate patients could improve cervical cancer prevention.
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.