Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20518577›Full record

ReviewDrugs2010

Human papillomavirus vaccines: current status and future prospects.

Suzanne M Garland, Jennifer S Smith

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 191 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Anti-cancer vaccines - a one-hit wonder?The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2014
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Clinical efficiency of quadrivalent HPV (types 6/11/16/18) vaccine in patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Suzanne M GarlandDepartment of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. suzanne.garland@thewomens.org.au
Jennifer S Smith
Royal Women's Hospital · AUUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer of women. Less-developed countries bear the greatest burden in terms of morbidity and mortality, largely due to the lack of organized screening programmes. Cervical cancer is the first cancer shown to be caused solely by virological agents: oncogenic genotypes of human papillomavirus (HPV). Two recently developed prophylactic cervical cancer vaccines, which are based on viral-like particle (VLP) technology of HPV, have the capacity to diminish a large proportion of cervical cancer cases worldwide. However, to be successful public health tools, they need to be widely implemented to the appropriate target population, preferably prior to first sexual intercourse. To increase vaccination coverage, national programmes in some countries have also included catch-up vaccination, for a limited time period, to young adult women aged up to 26 years. Despite the excellent efficacy for high-grade dysplasia due to vaccine-related HPV types (near to 100%) and immunogenicity induced against the HPV types 16 and 18 in females naive to those HPV types pre-vaccination, some form of cervical precancer screening will still be necessary. Immunity to HPV is primarily type specific, and thus protection induced by the current generation of vaccines, based on a limited number of HPV VLP types, cannot provide complete protection against all oncogenic HPV types. Both these vaccines translate to protection of cervical cancer in the order of 70-75%, which represents the percentage of invasive cancers attributable to HPV-16 and -18. Challenges to ensuring the successful control of this largely preventable disease include endorsement by governments and policy makers, affordable prices, education at all levels, overcoming barriers to vaccination and continued adherence to screening programmes.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus VaccinesAdolescentAdultClinical Trials as TopicEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansMass VaccinationPapillomavirus InfectionsRisk FactorsSexual BehaviorSexually Transmitted Diseases, ViralUterine Cervical DiseasesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID20518577
OpenAlexW1999893529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.