ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing in detecting persistent or recurrent disease at follow-up after conization.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrently, the Test of Cure after conization consists of two elements, namely human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and cytology. Given the high sensitivity of HPV testing and its modest resource requirements, we will explore its potential as a stand-alone test for identifying persistent/recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) during follow-up after conization, including women at increased risk, such as those with involved resection margins. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective study examined 473 women who underwent conization in Funen, Denmark, between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024. During the post-conization follow-up period, data were manually extracted from patients' medical records and PatoBank.
resultsAt the follow-up, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or worse (CIN1+) persistent/recurrence was experienced by 55 women (11.6%) (median age of 42 years (range 22-87 years)). Among those with involved margins, 30.3% (40/132) experienced persistent/recurrent CIN1+ compared to 3.6% (7/193) with free margins; and 66.4% (314/473) tested negative for high-risk HPV after conization, and only four of them developed persistent/recurrent CIN1+. HPV testing alone predicted the risk of CIN1+ persistence/recurrence with 93% sensitivity and 98.7% negative predictive value (NPV). Combining negative HPV test results with free resection margins yielded a sensitivity and NPV of 100%. Co-testing combined with free margins also provided a sensitivity and NPV of 100%.
conclusionsUsing HPV testing as a stand-alone test after conization demonstrates an NPV nearly equal to that of the Test of Cure. Adding free margins to HPV testing further enhanced sensitivity and NPV for detecting CIN1+ persistence or relapse during follow-up. Our results indicate that HPV testing alone can be used as post-conization follow-up for women with negative margins.
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.