ReviewCancers2025
Clinical Outcomes of Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ According to Conservative or Demolitive Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision for cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: a retrospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Global Comparative Review of Guidelines for Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ in Young Nulliparous Patient with Persistent ASC-US and Multiple-Type HPV Infections Without HPV 16 and 18 Types-Case Report.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Genomic Characterization of 102 Cervical Adenocarcinoma Tumors.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Pathological outcomes in women with cervical adenocarcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the risk of recurrence and residual disease between conservative and demolitive treatment in patients diagnosed with cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS).
methodsBibliographic databases (CENTRAL, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published up to December 2024 reporting both conservative and demolitive treatment outcomes. Exclusion criteria were the lack of outcomes of interest, the reporting of only one treatment modality, and a lack of follow-up. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The evaluated outcomes were AIS or invasive recurrence and AIS or invasive residual after margin positivity at the first excision. A meta-analysis with a fixed-effect model and the Mantel-Haenszel method for risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was performed. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the chi-squared test and quantified with the I2 method. A meta-regression was performed using the year of publication, CKC use, margin positivity, and follow-up duration as predictors.
resultsNineteen studies were included, reporting data about 5934 patients with AIS diagnosis after conization. The meta-analysis showed a higher risk of recurrence as AIS in conservatively treated patients (11 studies, RR = 8.44, 95% CI 3.36-21.19,
conclusionsThe safety profile of a conservative treatment for AIS patients seems not to differ from that of a demolitive approach in terms of invasive recurrence or residual, while it seems to be associated with a higher risk of AIS recurrence. Future research should focus on optimizing follow-up strategies to detect AIS recurrences early.
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.