ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Global Comparative Review of Guidelines for Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe approach to adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) is challenged by diagnostic complexity, limited high-quality evidence, and heterogeneous guidance.
methodsWe conducted a narrative comparative review of global guidelines/recommendations (2012-2025; search updated 1 October 2025), extracting data across 38 topics related to AIS management and classifying indications into five categories of coverage/consensus.
resultsTwenty documents from national or supranational bodies were included. A cross-guideline consensus emerged on eight core items (colposcopy for any glandular cytologic abnormality; role of HPV test; mandatory histologic confirmation; excisional treatment for histologic AIS; re-excision when margins are involved; criteria and type of hysterectomy; and expert/centralized management). Operational variability emerged in the excisional technique, pathways for discordant results, management during pregnancy, and follow-up protocols. Divergent guidance was most evident for indications to endocervical sampling, criteria for conservative management, and the need for hysterectomy after completed childbearing. Limited-coverage consensus involved the technique of initial histologic sampling, endometrial assessment, and pathways for cytology subtypes. Several areas remained unaddressed.
conclusionsWhile the essential management of AIS is well defined, uncertainty increases when treatment must be personalized. A core outcome set and rigorous multicenter studies are needed to reduce heterogeneity and enable truly evidence-based personalization.
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.