Cited by 415Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsWomen's cancer prevention and management

Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Open access
Martin-Hirsch, Pierre PL, Paraskevaidis, Evangelos, Bryant, Andrew, Dickinson, Heather O·2013·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is the most common pre-malignant lesion. Atypical squamous changes occur in the transformation zone of the cervix with mild, moderate or severe changes described by their depth (CIN 1, 2 or 3). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is treated by local ablation or lower morbidity excision techniques. Choice of treatment depends on the grade and extent of the disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative surgical treatments for CIN. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to November 2012). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of alternative surgical treatments in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risks of bias. Risk ratios that compared residual disease after the follow-up examination and adverse events in women who received one of either laser ablation, laser conisation, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), knife conisation or cryotherapy were pooled in random-effects model meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials were included. Seven surgical techniques were tested in various comparisons. No significant differences in treatment failures were demonstrated in terms of persistent disease after treatment. Large loop excision of the transformation zone appeared to provide the most reliable specimens for histology with the least morbidity. Morbidity was lower than with laser conisation, although the trials did not provide data for every outcome measure. There were not enough data to assess the effect on morbidity when compared with laser ablation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that there is no obvious superior surgical technique for treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in terms of treatment failures or operative morbidity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd001318.pub3

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Berget A, Andreason B, Bock J. Laser and cryosurgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1991;70:231‐5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Healey M, Warton B, Taylor N. Postoperative symptoms following LLETZ of radical cervical diathermy with fulguration: A randomised double‐blind study. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1996;36:179‐81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jobson V, Homesley H. Comparison of cryosurgery and carbon dioxide laser ablation for the treatment of CIN. Colposcopy and Gynecologic Laser Surgery 1984;1:173‐80. [Google Scholar]
  4. Oyesanya O, Amersinghe C, Manning E. Out patient excisional management of cervical Intra‐epithelial neoplasia: A prospective randomized comparison between loop diathermy excision and laser excisional conisation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;168:485‐8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Santos C, Galdos R, Alvarez M, Velarde C, Barriga O, Dyer R, et al. One‐session management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A solution for developing countries. Gynecologic Oncology 1996;61:11‐5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Townsend D, Richart R. Cryotherapy and carbon dioxide laser management of CIN: A controlled comparison. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1983;61:75‐8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Girardi F, Heydarfadai M, Koroschetz F, Pickel H, Winter R. Cold‐knife conisation versus loop excision: histolopathologic and clinical results of a randomised trial. Gynecologic Oncology 1994;55:368‐70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Anderson M. Are we vaporizing microinvasive lesions?. RCOG Perinatology Press 1986;1:127‐31. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cirisano FD. Management of pre‐invasive disease of the cervix. Seminars in Surgical Oncology 1999;16(3):222‐7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jordan J. Symposia on cervical neoplsaia, excisional methods. Colposcopy and Gynecologic Laser Surgery 1984;1:271. [Google Scholar]
  11. Larson G. Conisation for preinvasive and invasive carcinoma. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1983;114 Suppl:1‐40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin-Hirsch, P. P., Paraskevaidis, E., Bryant, A., & Dickinson, H. O.
Affiliations
  • Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospital NHS Trust; Gynaecological Oncology Unit; Sharoe Green Lane Fullwood Preston Lancashire UK PR2 9HT
  • University Hospital of Ioannina (GR)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12-04
Volume
2014
Issue
2
Pages
CD001318-CD001318
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1528230525
Cited by
415
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 15
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, cervical cancer surgery, LLETZ, laser ablation, cryotherapy, treatment failure, surgical morbidity
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cryosurgery, Female, Humans, Conization, Laser Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review