ArticleBMC women's health2026
The diagnostic value of colposcopy in postmenopausal women: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostmenopausal women undergo physiological changes in the vaginal and cervical transformation zones, which influence the accuracy of cervical cancer screening and colposcopy results. This study aims to evaluate the immediate risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in postmenopausal women who are positive non-16/18 high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and Thinprep Cytologic Test (TCT) results classified as either no intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM) or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), examine the clinical implications of cervical cancer screening and colposcopy in this population and identify potential approaches to enhance current diagnostic protocols.
methodsThis study collected and analyzed clinical data from postmenopausal women who tested positive for either abnormal cytology or HPV between January 2023 to December 2024 at a single center hospital. The incidence of CIN was compared between the HPV16/18-positive group and the non-HPV16/18-positive group among patients with TCT results categorized as NILM or ASC-US. Additionally, a detailed analysis of the colposcopic results was performed for non-HPV16/18-positive women presenting with NILM or ASC-US on TCT.
resultsAmong the 392 patients who were non-HPV16/18-positive and had TCT results indicating either NILM or ASC-US, there were 50 cases (12.76%) of CIN 1, 18 cases (4.59%) of CIN 2/3, and 1 case (0.26%) of cervical cancer. Of these patients, 312 had TCT results classified as NILM and 80 as ASC-US. Within these subgroups, 15 cases (4.81%) in the NILM group and 4 cases (5.00%) in the ASC-US group developed CIN 2 + lesions. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.94). Among the 104 patients diagnosed with CIN 2 + lesions, 27 cases (25.96%) exhibited symptoms such as postmenopausal vaginal bleeding or abnormal discharge symptoms of varying degrees.
conclusionsVaginal bleeding and abnormal discharge in postmenopausal women warrant immediate evaluation. For postmenopausal patients who are HPV 16/18‑negative and have NILM or ASC‑US cytology, routine surveillance is appropriate. Adjunctive testing with E6/E7 mRNA assays or p16/Ki‑67 dual‑staining may be employed; any abnormal result should prompt diagnostic work‑up.
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.