Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39843194›Full record

ReviewCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2025

Approach to cervical polyps in primary care.

Elizabeth Baker, Andrea MacDonald, Sarah Tennant

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elizabeth BakerFourth-year medical student at Dalhousie University in Halifax, NS.
Andrea MacDonaldGeneral obstetrician-gynecologist at South Shore Women's Health in Bridgewater, NS.
Sarah TennantFamily medicine and emergency medicine physician practising in the South Shore region of Nova Scotia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo provide primary care providers (PCPs) with an approach for diagnosing and managing endocervical polyps, detailing a procedural technique for cervical polypectomy and outlining key information on when to refer to a gynecologist. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: This review and approach are based on the second author's clinical practice and available literature from 1994 to 2023. MAIN MESSAGE: Cervical polyps are commonly asymptomatic and benign, but can cause intermenstrual and postcoital bleeding. Cervical polyps alone are unlikely to be associated with dysplasia or malignancy; routine Papanicolaou and human papillomavirus tests remain the most important factors in identifying cervical dysplasia. For symptomatic patients, the lack of available literature to guide PCPs can result in unnecessary referrals to gynecology, long wait times, and associated costs to the health care system. Symptomatic endocervical polyps can be easily and painlessly removed by primary care clinicians in office using a ring-forceps polypectomy technique.

conclusionCervical polyps are common and generally do not require intervention if asymptomatic. Patients with cervical polyps should still participate in routine cervical cancer screening. Symptomatic cervical polyps in appropriate patients can be removed by PCPs and sent for histologic examination to avoid long wait times and unnecessary referrals to gynecology.

Indexed as

PolypsUterine Cervical DiseasesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansPrimary Health CareReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID39843194
PMCPMC11753288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.