ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2025
Short term complications of conisation and long term effects on fertility related outcomes in Denmark: register based nationwide cohort study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Outcomes associated with large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone in women 60-64 years of age: A population-based register study from Denmark.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo report on complications of conisation and its effects on fertility and stenosis.
designRegister based nationwide cohort study on routinely collected data using several linked databases.
settingPrimary and secondary care in Denmark, 2006-18. POPULATION: The conisation cohort comprised 48 048 conisations on women aged 23-65 who had undergone conisation within 120 days of a cervical biopsy. The biopsy cohort comprised 48 048 biopsies on women who had undergone a cervical biopsy but not conisation who were matched by age and time of procedure. Women were excluded from the conisation cohort before long term outcome analyses if they had undergone hysterectomy, resection of the uterus, or had cervical cancer or any long term outcomes within the 10 years before their conisation.
main outcome measuresBleeding, infection, and gynaecological operations within 30 days of conisation (stratified by age, year of conisation, and number of previous conisations) and long term risk of fertility treatment, fertility consultation, stenosis, cervical dilatation, infertility diagnoses, and death at any point after conisation. Long term outcomes were followed up until death, emigration, diagnosis of cervical cancer, hysterectomy or resection of uterus, or the end of 2018. Long term outcomes were analysed with incidence rate ratios from Cox regression models.
resultsBleeding, infection, and gynaecological operations were registered for 2.81% (n=1351), 0.48% (n=231), and 3.95% (n=1897) of all conisations within 30 days of the procedure, respectively. Women in the conisation cohort had increased risk of stenosis (incidence rate ratio 14.81, 95% confidence interval 7.55 to 29.05, 0.41%
conclusionThis study found higher rates of complications within 30 days of conisation than previous studies with comparable outcome definitions, and a substantially increased risk of stenosis and cervical dilatation for women who had cervical suturing to treat bleeding after conisation. However, these results were based on few events in a small subgroup, and are therefore associated with major uncertainty. This study supports previous findings that conisation does not generally increase rates of infertility treatment or infertility diagnoses.
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.