Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23199959›Full record

ReviewVaccine2012

Modeling preventative strategies against human papillomavirus-related disease in developed countries.

Karen Canfell, Harrell Chesson, Shalini L Kulasingam, Johannes Berkhof, Mireia Diaz, Jane J Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.2field-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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. HPV vaccine for men: Where to? (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Karen CanfellCancer Epidemiology Research Unit, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. karenc@nswcc.org.au
Harrell Chesson
Shalini L Kulasingam
Johannes Berkhof
Mireia Diaz
Jane J Kim
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USInstitut Català d'Oncologia · ESUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

Patient- and Practice-Centered Assessment of Self-CollectionU54CA164336 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI WHEELER, COSETTE MARIE · 2011 to 2017
$5.5M
Comparative and Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing HPV-Related DiseasesR01CA160744 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI KIM, JANE JOOYUN · 2012 to 2015
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160744NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160744-01A1NCI NIH HHS U54 CA164336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last 5 years, prophylactic vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) in pre-adolescent females has been introduced in most developed countries, supported by modeled evaluations that have almost universally found vaccination of pre-adolescent females to be cost-effective. Studies to date suggest that vaccination of pre-adolescent males may also be cost-effective at a cost per vaccinated individual of ~US$400-500 if vaccination coverage in females cannot be increased above ~50%; but if it is possible, increasing coverage in females appears to be a better return on investment. Comparative evaluation of the quadrivalent (HPV16,18,6,11) and bivalent (HPV16,18) vaccines centers around the potential trade-off between protection against anogenital warts and vaccine-specific levels of cross-protection against infections not targeted by the vaccines. Future evaluations will also need to consider the cost-effectiveness of a next generation nonavalent vaccine designed to protect against ~90% of cervical cancers. The timing of the effect of vaccination on cervical screening programs will be country-specific and will depend on vaccination catch-up age range and coverage and the age at which screening starts. Initial evaluations suggest that if screening remains unchanged, it will be less cost-effective in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated women but, in the context of current vaccines, will remain an important prevention method. Comprehensive evaluation of new approaches to screening will need to consider the population-level effects of vaccination over time. New screening strategies of particular interest include delaying the start age of screening, increasing the screening interval and switching to primary HPV screening. Future evaluations of screening will also need to focus on the effects of disparities in screening and vaccination uptake, the potential effects of vaccination on screening participation, and the effects of imperfect compliance with screening recommendations. This article forms part of a special supplement entitled "Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases" Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012.

Indexed as

Condylomata AcuminataCost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloped CountriesFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleGenital Neoplasms, MaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesVaccinationVirologyPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID23199959
PMCPMC3783354
OpenAlexW2120440924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.