ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
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.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Negative margins and negative HPV tests after large loop excision of the transformation zone: A nationwide historical cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Elevated Body Mass Index as a Predictor of Cervical Cancer and Precancerous Lesions.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFor women treated for cervical dysplasia at 60-64 years in Denmark, we reported the frequency of abnormalities before and after treatment of cervix uteri (most frequently performed as large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone, LLETZ) using population-based real-world data. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study based on national data from the Danish Pathology Data Bank and identified women who underwent a LLETZ in 2010-2016 at the age of 60-64. Women were managed according to nationwide evidence-based recommendations proposed by the Danish professional organizations. We retrieved information on all LLETZ specimens, cervical histology, cytology, and human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in the period of 2 years prior to the procedure to 2 years thereafter. We reported the frequencies of abnormalities before, at, or after the procedure.
resultsOf the 1014 women who had a LLETZ during the study period, 660 (65%) showed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or worse (CIN1+, including CIN1, CIN2, CIN3, cervical cancer, and CIN not otherwise specified) in their LLETZ specimen, with free resection margins in 255 (39%). Of the 1014 women, 551 (54%) had CIN2+ in a biopsy preceding the LLETZ and in 567 (56%) CIN2+ was found in their LLETZ specimen. In 37 (4%) women, the specimen showed cervical cancer; whereas in the pre-LLETZ biopsies of these 37 women, cancer was detected in only 7 (1%). After LLETZ, 818 (81%) women underwent test-of-cure follow-up which was positive in 406 women (40%). Furthermore, 408 (40%) women had new histological samples registered after LLETZ. These showed CIN2+ in 134 (13%) women, whereas a new cancer was diagnosed in 11 (1%) women.
conclusionsDue to persistent abnormal tests after LLETZ, an extended follow-up is still required for a large proportion of the women in this age group.
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.