Cited by 14Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchReproductive Health and ContraceptionWomen's cancer prevention and management

Pregnancy after Treatment for Cervical Cancer Precursor Lesions in a Retrospective Matched Cohort

Open access
Naleway, Allison L., Weinmann, Sheila, Krishnarajah, Girishanthy, Arondekar, Bhakti, Fernandez, Jovelle, Swamy, Geeta, Myers, Evan·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatments for precancerous cervical lesions were associated with lower pregnancy rates compared to rates in unexposed women and women who had a diagnostic cervical biopsy or colposcopy. DESIGN: Matched, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW), an integrated healthcare delivery system in Oregon and Washington. PATIENTS: Women 14 to 53 years old with KPNW enrollment during the period 1998 through 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pregnancy after exposure or index date. Pregnancy was defined using a validated algorithm and electronic medical records data. RESULTS: We observed 570 pregnancies following cervical treatment in 4,137 women, 1,533 pregnancies following a diagnostic procedure in 13,767 women, and 7,436 pregnancies in a frequency-matched sample of 81,435 women unexposed to treatment or diagnostic procedures. After adjusting for age and contraceptive use, we observed a higher rate of pregnancies in the treatment group compared to unexposed women (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30-1.55), but no difference in pregnancy rates between the treatment and diagnostic procedure groups (HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: No adverse effects of cervical procedures on subsequent rates of pregnancy were observed in this cohort with up to twelve years of follow-up time.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0117525

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • Two cohort studies in North America assessed pregnancy rates following ablative treatment, showing either increased pregnancy rates for grouped ablative procedures including thermal cautery, or no significant effect for laser treatment and cryotherapy.

    “More recently, two cohort studies in North America assessed pregnancy rates following ablative treatment, showing either increased pregnancy rates for grouped ablative procedures, including thermal cautery [24], or no significant effect for laser treatment and cryotherapy [15].”

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: 3

  1. [8]McLaren J (1967) Conservative management of cervical precancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonwealth 74: 487– 492 6033269
  2. [10]Coppleson M, Atkinson KH, Dalrymple JC (1992) Cervical squamous and glandular intraepithelial neoplasia: clinical features and review of management In Coppleson M, Monaghan JM, Morrow CP Tattersall MHN, editors. Gynecologic Oncology. Edinburgh: Churchill and Livingston pp. 590– 595.
  3. [16]Hagen B, Skieldestad FE (1993) The outcome of pregnancy after laser conization of the cervix. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 100: 717– 720. 8399008

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naleway, A. L., Weinmann, S., Krishnarajah, G., Arondekar, B., Fernandez, J., Swamy, G., & Myers, E.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United States) (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Naleway, Allison L.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-02-11
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
e0117525
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977764059
Cited by
14
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Kaiser Permanente
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
cervical precancerous lesions, pregnancy rate, cervical treatment, colposcopy, contraceptive use, reproductive outcomes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Precancerous Conditions, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Pregnancy Rate, Young Adult

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