IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0170587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Cold-Knife Conization versus Loop Electrosurgical Excision for Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ (ACIS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yanming Jiang
  • Changxian Chen
  • Li Li

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to conduct a more comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of original studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) versus cold-knife conization (CKC) in conservative surgical treatment of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (ACIS) for women who have not completed childbearing. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in the PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases to identify all potential studies involving patients with ACIS treated with LEEP versus CKC published until December 2015. Results: Eighteen retrospective studies were included in this systematic review. All the 18 included studies reported the rate of positive margins, and the results of the individual studies varied. The positive margins were 44% (267/607) after LEEP and 29% (274/952) after CKC. The pooled meta-analysis exhibited significantly different outcome (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.34–1.80, P

Suggested Citation

  • Yanming Jiang & Changxian Chen & Li Li, 2017. "Comparison of Cold-Knife Conization versus Loop Electrosurgical Excision for Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ (ACIS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0170587
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170587
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170587&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0170587?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0170587. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.