SynthesisBJS open2026
Outcomes reported in studies of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions treatments: systematic review.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAnal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) is a precursor of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC). Reported outcomes from treatment trials vary widely, limiting understanding of the effectiveness of different interventions. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes reported in studies evaluating treatments in anal HSIL.
methodsA systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library (inception to June 2025) was conducted. Eligible studies evaluated any anal HSIL treatment in any population. Verbatim outcomes and associated definitions, measurement tools, and timepoints were extracted and mapped to standardized outcome terms (SOTs), categorized using The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative taxonomy.
resultsOut of 5488 studies screened, 67 studies were included, comprising 40 observational studies, 23 interventional studies (5 randomized controlled trials), and 4 systematic reviews. A total of 966 outcomes were reported, grouped into 170 SOTs. Outcomes were mapped across all five COMET core areas (Death, Physiological/clinical, Life impact, Resource use, and Adverse events), with Physiological/clinical outcomes most frequently represented (131/170 SOTs; 77%). Substantial heterogeneity was observed, particularly in definitions of disease response, recurrence, and adverse events. For example, across 18 studies reporting 'complete response', definitions varied in assessment modality (clinical assessment alone, histology alone, cytology alone, or combined clinical-histological criteria), stringency (ranging from absence of visible lesions to absence of HSIL, LSIL, or any dysplasia), scope (lesion-specific versus field-wide assessment), and timing, which ranged from 3 weeks to 18 months post-treatment. Only three studies used validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for quality of life or functioning.
conclusionOutcome reporting in anal HSIL treatment studies is highly inconsistent, limiting the synthesis of evidence and comparative analysis. These findings support the urgent need for a COS to standardize outcome selection and improve the quality and comparability of future trials.
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.