SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Predictive factors for postoperative recurrence in early cervical cancer patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Survival Outcomes and Prognostic Factors for Patients in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicentric Study in Turkey.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early-stage cervical cancer generally has a favorable prognosis with treatment, yet recurrence remains a significant risk for a subset of patients. Identifying reliable prognostic factors can help refine risk stratification, optimize follow-up strategies, and guide adjuvant therapy decisions. This meta-analysis evaluates the association between key prognostic factors-tumor diameter, HPV status, depth of invasion, LVSI status, and positive lymph nodes-and recurrence risk in early-stage cervical cancer. Materials and methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus was conducted to identify studies assessing the relationship between prognostic factors and recurrence in early-stage cervical cancer. Studies meeting predefined inclusion criteria were selected, and data were extracted on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and recurrence outcomes. The NOS was used to assess study quality. Pooled ORs with 95% CIs were calculated using both fixed-effects and random-effects models, with heterogeneity and publication bias assessed through I² statistics and funnel plot analysis, respectively. Results: A total of 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Tumor diameter >4 cm (OR = 2.49; 95% CI: 1.69-3.69), depth of invasion >1/2 (OR = 2.82; 95% CI: 1.66-4.80), LVSI positivity (OR = 2.54; 95% CI: 1.36-4.73), and positive lymph nodes (OR = 2.86; 95% CI: 1.99-4.11) were all significantly associated with an increased risk of recurrence. However, HPV-positive status showed no consistent association with recurrence risk (OR = 2.12; 95% CI: 0.31-14.52), likely due to high heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 86%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results, and publication bias was minimal. Conclusion: This meta-analysis identified tumor diameter >4 cm, depth of invasion >1/2, LVSI positivity, and positive lymph nodes as significant prognostic factors for recurrence in early-stage cervical cancer. These findings underscore the importance of comprehensive assessment in clinical practice to better identify high-risk patients who may benefit from intensified monitoring or adjuvant therapies. Further research, particularly on the role of HPV status, is needed to enhance the predictive accuracy of recurrence risk models. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024599867, PROSPERO CRD42024599867.
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.