SynthesisBMC women's health2025
The overtreatment rate, medical cost and psychological affection of see-and-treat versus three-step approaches in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe see-and-treat (S&T) approach is increasingly utilized for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). However, its recognition remains limited compared to the traditional three-step management. This study aims to systematically review and compare the outcomes of studies that directly assess the S&T and three-step approaches in CIN treatment.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to December 10, 2024. Eligible studies directly compared the overtreatment rate, medical costs, and psychological impact of the S&T and three-step approaches for abnormal cervical smears. The inclusion criteria for women undergoing S&T had to align with those for three-step management. Data on overtreatment risk, medical costs, and psychological effects were extracted and analyzed. Comparative results were presented using forest plots, stratified by different smear categories.
resultsTwelve publications were included, comprising three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine observational studies. Among women with ASC-H or HSIL, the overtreatment risk following S&T was comparable to that of the three-step approach (ASC-H, RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.75-2.60; HSIL, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71-1.23). However, in the LSIL/AS-CUS subgroup, the S&T approach was associated with a significantly higher overtreatment risk compared to the three-step method (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.92-2.15). The S&T approach was associated with lower medical expenses for HSIL cases and a reduction in patients' negative emotional responses compared to the three-step procedure.
conclusionsThe S&T approach may be a suitable alternative for women with HSIL/ASC-H smear results, considering its comparable overtreatment risk, potential cost savings, and psychological benefits. However, its use in LSIL/ASC-US cases should be carefully evaluated due to the increased risk of overtreatment.
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.