↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Meta-analysis of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Meta-analysis of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ott.s108832
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan-Ming Jiang, Chang-Xian Chen, Li Li

Abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the superiority of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) or large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) versus cold-knife conization (CKC) in the surgical treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Systematic searches were performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure Databases to identify all potential articles involving patients with CIN treated with LEEP/LLETZ or CKC published up to February 2016. Risk ratios (RRs) or weighted mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. Seven randomized controlled trials, one prospective cohort study, and twelve retrospective cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences following LEEP/LLETZ compared with CKC in recurrence rate (RR =1.75, 95% CI =0.99-3.11, P=0.06), positive margin rate (RR =1.45; 95% CI =0.85-2.49, P=0.17), residual disease rate (RR =1.15, 95% CI =0.73-1.81, P=0.48), secondary hemorrhage (RR =1.16, 95% CI =0.74-1.81; P=0.46), or cervical stenosis. Moreover, subgroup analyses based on randomized trials also revealed that no statistical significance was observed in the above outcomes. However, women treated with CKC had a significantly deeper cervical cone than those treated with LLETZ/LEEP (MD =-5.71, 95% CI =-7.45 to -3.96; P<0.001). LEEP/LLETZ is as effective as CKC with regard to recurrence rate, positive margin rate, residual disease rate, secondary hemorrhage, and cervical stenosis for the surgical treatment of CIN. Further large-scale studies are needed to confirm our findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 15 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2020.
All research outputs
#7,778,071
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#417
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,819
of 353,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#20
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.