Cited by 1,120Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis

Kyrgiou, M, Koliopoulos, G, Martin-Hirsch, P, Arbyn, M, Prendiville, W, Paraskevaidis, E·2006·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Conservative methods to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and microinvasive cervical cancer are commonly used in young women because of the advent of effective screening programmes. In a meta-analysis, we investigated the effect of these procedures on subsequent fertility and pregnancy outcomes. Methods We searched for studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE and classified them by the conservative method used and the outcome measure studied regarding both fertility and pregnancy. Pooled relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated with a random-effects model and interstudy heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane's Q test. Findings We identified 27 studies. Cold knife conisation was significantly associated with preterm delivery ( Interpretation All the excisional procedures to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia present similar pregnancy-related morbidity without apparent neonatal morbidity. Caution in the treatment of young women with mild cervical abnormalities should be recommended. Clinicians now have the evidence base to counsel women appropriately.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68181-6

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kyrgiou, M., Koliopoulos, G., Martin-Hirsch, P., Arbyn, M., Prendiville, W., & Paraskevaidis, E.
Affiliations
  • Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique (BE)
  • Coombe Women & Infants University Hospital (IE)
  • University Hospital of Ioannina (GR)
Corresponding author
Kyrgiou, M
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
367
Issue
9509
Pages
489-498
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2153952034
Cited by
1,120
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 76 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 98 · 2012: 78
FWCI
9.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, microinvasive cervical cancer, conservative treatment, LLETZ, fertility, pregnancy outcomes, preterm birth, low birth weight, cesarean section, premature rupture of membranes, neonatal intensive care admission, perinatal mortality, cervical cancer screening, young women
MeSH terms
Adult, Birth Weight, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Fertility, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Neoplastic, Pregnancy Outcome, Conization, Delivery, Obstetric, 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