ArticleCancer medicine2026
Analysis of Pathological Discrepancies Between Colposcopic Biopsy and Conization in Cytology-Positive Cervical Lesions.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate factors contributing to discrepancies between colposcopic-directed biopsy (CDB) and conization in patients with cytology-positive cervical lesions to reduce missed diagnoses of cervical cancer and unnecessary conizations.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted, including 1407 patients with positive ThinPrep cytologic test (TCT) results who underwent both CDB and cervical conization (loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife conization), selected from a cohort of 200,814 screened individuals (January 2020-April 2025). The histopathological diagnosis of specimens obtained from cervical conization served as the gold standard, and Firth-corrected logistic regression models were utilized to evaluate pathological discrepancies and their influencing factors.
resultsMcNemar's test revealed a significant discrepancy between the diagnosis of HSIL+ by CDB and post-conization (p < 0.01). The overall concordance rate between colposcopic biopsy and post-conization diagnoses was 42.7% (601/1407), with a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.336, indicating slight agreement. Univariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that diagnostic downgrading in cone specimens was significantly associated with several factors: age, cytology results, glandular involvement, the time interval between biopsy and conization, and transformation zone (TZ) type. Specifically, downgrading was more likely in patients < 35 years of age, with TCT results showing ASC-US, LSIL, or ASC-H, no evidence of glandular involvement, a biopsy-to-conization interval < 90 days, and TZ 1. Multivariate logistic regression analysis further identified the colposcopic impression of chronic cervicitis, TCT results of ASC-US or LSIL, CDB results of chronic cervicitis, LSIL, and no glandular involvement as significant factors associated with downgraded conization diagnoses.
conclusionSignificant pathological discrepancies exist between CDB and conization, and clinicians should consider these factors to create more precise and individualized treatment strategies.
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.