ArticleGynecology and pelvic medicine2024
A real-world research of cervical cancer screening in patients diagnosed with cervical cancer by loop electrosurgical excision procedure.
Article in Gynecology and pelvic medicine, 2024. 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.
- Missed diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse complicated with cervical cancer: a retrospective case series of five patients and review of literature.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer is highly prevalent globally, but is effectively prevented or even eliminated through early screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. However, overall coverage of cervical cancer screening in developing countries is low. Methods: A total of 191 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer after loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) were enrolled in this retrospective study from January 2013 to August 2019 in the West China Second University Hospital. Collected basic clinicopathological information about these patients and all cervical cancer screening results. Chi-square test was used for univariate analysis and Logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis (P<0.05 with meaning). Results: The standard screening rate was only 20.9% (40/191). The results of univariate analysis showed that: age ≥40 years, number of miscarriages ≥2, mode of delivery as normal, cytological result as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), and cervical tissue biopsy result as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)III were the high-risk factors for missed diagnosis after standard screening (P<0.05). The results of multivariate analysis showed that only the cytological result as HSIL was an independent risk factor for missed diagnosis of cervical cancer after standard screening (P=0.01). The HPV-negative rate and cervical biopsy negative rate of non-squamous cell carcinoma patients were higher than those of squamous cell carcinoma patients (27.3% Conclusions: Cytological results showed that HSIL was an independent risk factor for missed diagnosis of cervical cancer after standard screening. The accuracy of HPV detection and cervical biopsy in the diagnosis of non-squamous cell carcinoma is insufficient.
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.