Effects of cervical conisation on pregnancy outcome: a meta-analysis
Abstract
To assess the effect of cervical conisation on pregnancy outcome, a literature search strategy was conducted to identify all of the references lists of the relevant studies. The fixed or random effect model was used to calculate pooled RRs on the basis of heterogeneity. Twenty-seven publications with n cases and m controls were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that conisation was associated with a higher risk of a preterm delivery (p = .010), PROM (p = .008), and a lower birth weight (p < .001) in overall effect. The subgroup analysis showed that CKC was associated with a significantly increased risk of a preterm delivery (p < .001), and a lower birth weight (p< .001). LLETZ was associated with preterm delivery (p = .004) and a lower birth weight (p = .020). The results suggested that cervical conisation increases the risk of a preterm delivery, PROM, and a lower birth weight, especially in a CKC and LLEETZ procedure. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? Currently, the three main excisional procedures for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) treatment are laser conisation, cold-knife conisation (CKC), and a large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ). CKC and LEEP/LLETZ were significantly associated with a preterm delivery and low birth weight, and that former was associated with higher relative risks than the latter one. What do the results of this study add? The present results showed that conisation was associated with a h…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Less frequent pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth, late miscarriages, premature membrane rupture, low birthweight or ectopic pregnancy have been associated with excisional cervical treatment.
“which have been associated with excisional cervical treatment [12, 22].”
From Fertility and Miscarriage Incidence After Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Treatment by Thermal Ablation: A Cohort Study (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 51
- Authors
- Zhuang, H., Hong, S., Zheng, L., Zhang, L., Zhuang, X., Wei, H., & Yang, Y.
- Affiliations
- Fujian Medical University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhuang, Hongmei
- Venue
- Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-06-08
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 74-81
- ISSN
- 0144-3615 (ISSN-L)
- 1364-6893
- OpenAlex
- W2806741594
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Keywords
- pregnancy outcomes, preterm birth, preterm premature rupture of membranes, low birth weight, LLETZ, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
- MeSH terms
- Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervix Uteri, Female, Humans, Infant, Low Birth Weight, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Risk Factors, Case-Control Studies, Conization, Premature Birth
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
