SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Prognostic evaluation and treatment strategies for cervical cancer in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 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
abtstrac
objectiveThis study was conducted to evaluate the prognosis of cervical cancer in pregnancy (CCIP) and analyze the clinicopathological factors affecting the prognosis of this cancer. DATA SOURCES: The studies published through July 2024 were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The cohort studies, case-control studies, randomized controlled trials, and non-randomized controlled trials involving CCIP patients with data on 5-year overall survival (OS) were included in this study. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
methodsThe quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0, focusing on the 5-year OS and relevant clinicopathological factors.
resultsThe results demonstrated that the 5-year OS of patients with CCIP was similar to that of non-pregnant patients with cervical cancer (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94-1.06, P = 0.978). The subgroup analysis results revealed that tumor size (≥ 4 cm), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (≥ IB2), and timing of diagnosis (postpartum) were prognostic factors with statistical significance (P < 0.05). However, such factors as pregnancy termination and timing of delivery did not significantly affect the 5-year OS (P > 0.05). The delivery mode required further validation despite its borderline significance (P = 0.05).
conclusionThe results of this study suggest that pregnancy does not exert a significant adverse effect on the long-term survival of patients with cervical cancer. Tumor size (≥ 4 cm), FIGO stage (≥ IB2), and time of diagnosis (postpartum) are identified as unfavorable prognostic factors for CCIP patients, while delivery mode requires further investigation. These findings provide strong evidence to support the optimization of personalized treatment strategies for CCIP patients.
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.