 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Cervical DysplasiaFrom: Roberta (anonymous@obgyn.net)Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:47:28 -0600 (CST)
At Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Meg wrote: > >Recently, I just got my pap smear results back and was told that I have >an abnormal reading. It was mentioned that it could be cervical >dysplasia or HPV...What is cervical dysplasia exactly? I've tried to >look for it in the archives, but since everyone has already talked about >it with their doctor, they all know what it is! Also, if I have cervical >dysplasia after all, will it interfere with an IUD? I had planned on >getting one as a non hormonal substitute for the pill... It sounds >pretty bad, and I'm a little worried. I'm new to this town and it may >be a little while until I can get a new patient appointment. Thank you >for your time and help! FYI Here's a medlin abstract on the increase risk of but I don't know how that applies if you already have it: Article Title: Risk of cervical dysplasia in users of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices or depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate. The New Zealand Contraception and Health Study Group. Article Source: Contraception 1994 Nov;50(5):431-41 Abstract: Three cohorts of women aged 20-39 attending medical practitioners or family planning clinics in New Zealand for contraceptive advice were followed prospectively for five years. The three cohorts were defined by use (or at least prescription) of one of three study contraceptive methods at the time of beginning of follow-up--oral contraceptives (OC), intrauterine devices (IUD) or depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)--and numbered 2469, 2072 and 1721 women, respectively. Follow-up was intended to be annual and included cervical smear as well as interim contraceptive and medical histories. A positive outcome (referred to here as 'dysplasia') was any degree of definite dysplasia or carcinoma of the cervix diagnosed cytologically by a central study laboratory, and confirmed by histology or analysis of DNA ploidy. In the three cohorts (OC, IUD and MPA, respectively), 12,839, 10,774 and 8,984 person-years of follow-up were accumulated and 125, 92 and 101 cases of dysplasia were confirmed. Crude annual rates of dysplasia per 1,000 person-years were approximately the same in the OC (9.6) and IUD (8.4) cohorts. Crude rates were higher in the MPA cohort (11.3 per 1,000 person-years). However, important confounding factors, principally smoking and sexual behavior, were identified with rate ratios ranging between 1 and 3 over the range of the potentially confounding variables, and multivariate analyses revealed no evidence of increased risk for the MPA cohort when these factors were taken into account. At least over the short term, there appears to be no difference in risk of cervical dysplasia between women using these three methods of contraception if differences between groups in respect to known confounding factors are taken into account. Major Subject Heading(s): Cervix Dysplasia [etiology]; Contraceptives, Oral [adverse effects]; Intrauterine Devices [adverse effects]; Medroxyprogesterone 17-Acetate [adverse effects] Find other articles with similar Subjects. Minor Subject Heading(s): Adolescence; Adult; Cervix Dysplasia [epidemiology]; New Zealand; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors Unique NLM Identifier: 95163284 Indexing Check Tags: Female; Human; Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Publication Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE MEDLINE Indexing Date: 199505 ISSN: 0010-7824 Language: English CAS Registry/EC Numbers: 0 (Contraceptives, Oral); 71-58-9 (Medroxyprogesterone 17-Acetate)
-- Roberta F. Speyer Founders of OBGYN.net Publisher, OBGYN.net roberta.speyer@obgyn.net Elecomm Corporation http://www.obgyn.net 5707 Lakemoore Drive, Suite 100 (512) 346-1920 Austin, Texas USA 78731
|
|
Return to ![[ Women's Health Forum ]](http://www.obgyn.net/images_women/wh-forum.gif)
Report TECHNICAL Problems ONLY to: webmaster@obgyn.net
Last Updated: Thu Oct 2 06:36:56 2008