ArticleJAMA surgery2026
Long-Term Outcomes After Cervical Cold Knife Conization or Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure.
Article in JAMA surgery, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Cold knife conization (CKC) and the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) are standard treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma in situ. However, the comparative long-term effectiveness of these procedures in promoting human papillomavirus (HPV) clearance and preventing recurrent cervical lesions remains uncertain. Objective: To compare the long-term incidence of HPV clearance and recurrence of cervical lesions after CKC or LEEP. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 2 cohorts: a nationwide cohort from Sweden (cohort 1) and a multicenter hospital-based cohort from Fujian Province, China (cohort 2). The study dates were January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2013, for cohort 1 and from October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2022, for cohort 2. A target trial emulation framework was applied to evaluate the effectiveness of CKC vs LEEP, using inverse probability of censoring weighting to balance baseline covariates and address censoring. Women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or carcinoma in situ were included. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2024, to August 31, 2025. Exposure: Cold knife conization or the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was recurrence of cervical lesions. Secondary outcomes included HPV clearance at 3, 6, and 12 months (cohort 2). Weighted Cox models with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were used to compare the recurrence of cervical lesions between CKC and LEEP, adjusting for clinical and demographic factors. Results: The total sample size was 77 001 women who underwent cervical conization in Sweden between 1997 and 2013. In cohort 1, after 22 years of follow-up, 16 017 of 75 497 (21.2%) women who underwent LEEP had recurrence, and 319 of 1504 (21.2%) women who underwent CKC had recurrence. In cohort 2, 65 of 3710 (1.8%) women who were treated with LEEP had recurrent cervical lesions compared with 11 (0.8%) recurrent cervical lesions among the 1340 women who were treated with CKC after 9 years of follow-up. In the hypothetical target trial, women who underwent CKC had a significantly lower risk of recurrence compared with those who underwent LEEP, with HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65-0.68) in cohort 1 and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.21-0.79) in cohort 2. In addition, the HPV clearance rate after CKC was higher than that of LEEP at 3, 6, and 12 months in cohort 2. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or carcinoma in situ, CKC was associated with a lower risk of recurrent cervical lesions and higher HPV clearance rates compared with LEEP.
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.