ArticleBMC cancer2025
Cervical pathology outcomes in the setting of completely normal colposcopic impressions.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the pathological outcomes in patients referred for colposcopy due to abnormal cervical cancer screening results while presenting completely normal colposcopic impressions.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted at the Cervical Disease Diagnosis and Treatment Health Center of Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital (a tertiary referral center in Southeast China). We included 2,515 patients with abnormal screening (cytology/HPV) but completely normal colposcopy. All underwent four-quadrant cervical biopsies. Endocervical curettage (ECC) was added for HPV16/18-positive cases, high-grade cytology, or partially visualized squamocolumnar junctions (SCJ). Conization/hysterectomy was performed per clinical guidelines. Pathological diagnosis relied on the most severe findings across cervical biopsies, ECC, conization and hysterectomy specimens.
resultsHigh-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (CIN2+) were detected in 7.1% (179/2515), including 7 cervical cancers (all postmenopausal, aged >45, with partially visualized SCJ). Biopsies confirmed 72.1% (129/179) of CIN2+ cases, while 20.1% (36/179) were identified via ECC and 7.8% (14/179) via conization. CIN2+ risk correlated with advanced age (P=0.011) and high-risk screening results (P<0.001). Menstrual status, cervical transformation zone type, gravidity, and parity showed no significant differences between CIN2+ and normal/CIN1 groups.
conclusionThe presence of CIN2+ lesions cannot be ruled out based solely on completely normal colposcopic impressions. High-risk screening results and advanced age are associated with an increased risk of CIN2+. Random biopsies, alongside ECC when the SCJ is partially visualized, play a crucial role in detection, particularly among postmenopausal patients. However, for patients under 25 with low-risk screening results, such procedures may not be imperative.
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.