Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Queen Mary Universit...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Article . 2015 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY NC ND
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
PubMed Central
Other literature type . 2015
Data sources: PubMed Central
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Is the increased risk of preterm birth following excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia restricted to the first birth post treatment?

Authors: Castanon, A; Landy, R; Brocklehurst, P; Evans, H; Peebles, D; Singh, N; Walker, P; +3 Authors

Is the increased risk of preterm birth following excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia restricted to the first birth post treatment?

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore whether the increased risk of preterm birth following treatment for cervical disease is limited to the first birth following colposcopy.DesignNested case–control study.SettingTwelve NHS hospitals in England.PopulationAll nonmultiple births from women selected as cases or controls from a cohort of women with both colposcopy and a hospital birth. Cases had a preterm (20–36 weeks of gestation) birth. Controls had a term birth (38–42 weeks) and no preterm.MethodsObstetric, colposcopy and pathology details were obtained.Main outcome measuresAdjusted odds ratio of preterm birth in first and second or subsequent births following treatment for cervical disease.ResultsA total of 2798 births (1021 preterm) from 2001 women were included in the analysis. The risk of preterm birth increased with increasing depth of treatment among first births post treatment [trend per category increase in depth, categories <10 mm, 10–14 mm, 15–19 mm, ≥20 mm: odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.12–1.36, P < 0.001] and among second and subsequent births post treatment (trend OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.15–1.56, P < 0.001). No trend was observed among births before colposcopy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83–1.16, P = 0.855). The absolute risk of a preterm birth following deep treatments (≥15 mm) was 6.5% among births before colposcopy, 18.9% among first births and 17.2% among second and subsequent births post treatment. Risk of preterm birth (once depth was accounted for) did not differ when comparing first births post colposcopy with second and subsequent births post colposcopy (adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89–1.49).ConclusionsThe increased risk of preterm birth following treatment for cervical disease is not restricted to the first birth post colposcopy; it remains for second and subsequent births. These results suggest that once a woman has a deep treatment she remains at higher risk of a preterm birth throughout her reproductive life.Tweetable abstractRisk of preterm birth following large treatments for cervical disease remains for second and subsequent births.

Keywords

Adult, 330, 610, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Research Support, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Journal Article, Odds Ratio, Humans, conisation, Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia, Non-U.S. Gov't, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, General Obstetrics, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Newborn, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Multicenter Study, large loop excision of the transformation zone, England, Colposcopy, Case-Control Studies, Premature Birth, Female, preterm delivery

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    26
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
26
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Green
hybrid