Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,222

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical guidelines: Developing guidelines

Open access
Shekelle, P. G, Woolf, S. H, Eccles, M., Grimshaw, J.·1999·BMJ

Abstract

Background: Although two types of cervical cryotherapy tips are widely used, there have been no randomized prospective comparison studies reported in the medical literature. Shallow conical tip proponents theorize that a greater depth of freeze near the os yields better treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) without elevating the squamocolumnar junction into the cervical canal. Flat tip proponents theorize an equally effective CIN treatment with lower incidence of posttreatment squamocolumnar junction location in the cervical canal. Methods: A comparative descriptive study was performed to evaluate 117 cryotherapy candidates with biopsy-proved CIN who were classified by location of their squamocolumnar junctions (ectocervix, at the os, or in the canal). They were then randomized to receive double-freeze cervical cryotherapy with either a flat or shallow conical tip. Four or more months later, repeated colposcopy and Papanicolaou smears were performed to assess resolution of CIN and posttreatment location of the squamocolumnar junction. Results: Eighty-four patients (71%) completed the study. Analysis indicated no important difference between the two tips in eliminating CIN. The squamocolumnar junction was colposcopically visualized at all posttreatment examinations. When the pretreatment squamocolumnar junction location was on the ectocervix, data analysis indicated that squamocolumnar junction movement was greater with the shallow conical tip (P = .037), particularly into the canal, where it is clinically more difficult to visualize (P = .019). There were no Significant differences in movement of the squamocolumnar junction when it was originally at the os or in the canal. Conclusions: This study found no significant difference in effectiveness of the two types of tips in eliminating CIN and supports the practice of using one type—either flat or shallow conical tips—to treat all candidates for cervical cryotherapy. Using the flat tip when the pretreatment squamocolumnar junction is on the ectocervix will allow easier posttreatment visualization of the squamocolumnar junction. Further studies with a greater number of subjects are indicated.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/bmj.318.7183.593

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,222

Metadata

Authors
Shekelle, P. G., Woolf, S. H., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-02-27
Volume
318
Issue
7183
Pages
593-596
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1994277369
Cited by
1,222
References
2
FWCI
40.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical guidelines: Developing guidelines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.318.7183.593
The paper
Shekelle, P. G., Woolf, S. H., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999). Clinical guidelines: Developing guidelines. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7183.593

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.