ArticlePloS one2025
Risk factors associated with adverse outcomes after cervical conization in patients with cervical adenocarcinoma in situ.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying high-risk groups for adverse outcomes after conization is crucial for developing targeted treatment plans for patients with cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (ACIS). This study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients with ACIS and identify risk factors associated with adverse outcomes.
methodsPatients diagnosed with ACIS through colposcopic biopsy at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University and Qilu Hospital between January 2012 and December 2022 were selected. After meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we collected their clinical data. Chi-square (χ2) tests and logistic regression models were employed to determine independent risk factors.
resultsA total of 379 patients with ACIS were included in this analysis. About 26.1% of these patients tested positive on preoperative endocervical curettage (ECC), while 79.4% had a single lesion. Among the 334 patients who underwent cervical conization, 17.1% had positive surgical margins. Additionally, residual lesions were present in 53.6% of cases, and pathological upgrading occurred in 7.8% of patients. Multivariate analysis indicated that age (p < 0.001), preoperative histopathological results from ECC (p = 0.033), and the number of ACIS lesions (p < 0.001) were associated with positive surgical margins. Number of births (p = 0.011), preoperative histopathological results from ECC (p = 0.030), and surgical margin statuses at cervical conization (p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for residual lesions. Preoperative histopathological result of ECC (p = 0.035) was confirmed as a predictor of postoperative pathological upgrading.
conclusionsOlder, multiparous patients with ACIS and abnormal preoperative ECC results require deeper diagnostic excision. Patients with positive conization margins necessitate further treatment, particularly when accompanied by abnormal ECC results. For women who wish to preserve their fertility, a repeat conization may be appropriate; however, in older and multiparous women, a hysterectomy would be recommended.
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.