Observational studyLasers in medical science2026
CO₂ laser ablation versus conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2: a prospective cohort study.
Observational study in Lasers in medical science, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of CO₂ laser ablation versus conization for treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and to identify predictors of treatment failure. A prospective observational cohort study was conducted on 146 women with histologically confirmed CIN2. Participants were allocated to either CO₂ laser ablation (n = 100) or loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP, n = 46) based on clinical decision. The primary outcome was short-term histopathological treatment response (regression to CIN1 or normal histology) at a 6-month follow-up. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences between groups. The overall treatment response rate was 81.5%, with no statistically significant difference between the conization (89.1%) and laser ablation (78.0%) groups (p = 0.108). This non-significant difference persisted after propensity score matching (OR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.17-2.54; p = 0.548). For the entire cohort, abnormal cytology was an independent predictor of treatment failure, while younger age was independently associated with treatment success. In the laser group specifically, abnormal cytology, older age, and a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² were significant predictors of treatment failure. CO₂ laser ablation demonstrated acceptable short-term efficacy for managing CIN2, with no statistically significant difference compared with conization at six months of follow-up. While conization remains the preferred treatment for patients with high-risk features, CO₂ laser ablation may represent a reasonable fertility-sparing option in carefully selected low-risk patients. Careful patient selection remains crucial for optimizing outcomes.
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.