ArticlePloS one2014
Incremental benefits of male HPV vaccination: accounting for inequality in population uptake.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Extending the Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Programme to Include Males in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Studies.Clinical drug investigation · 2015Pooled it
- Effect of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening in England by ethnicity: a modelling study.The Lancet. Public health · 2018Article
- HPV vaccination in boys: Determining the clinical relevance of this strategy.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Human papillomavirus vaccination: the population impact.F1000Research · 2017Review
- Effectiveness Modelling and Economic Evaluation of Primary HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer Prevention in New Zealand.PloS one · 2016Article
- Human papilloma virus vaccination: impact and recommendations across the world.Therapeutic advances in vaccines · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaccines against HPV16/18 are approved for use in females and males but most countries currently have female-only programs. Cultural and geographic factors associated with HPV vaccine uptake might also influence sexual partner choice; this might impact post-vaccination outcomes. Our aims were to examine the population-level impact of adding males to HPV vaccination programs if factors influencing vaccine uptake also influence partner choice, and additionally to quantify how this changes the post-vaccination distribution of disease between subgroups, using incident infections as the outcome measure.
methodsA dynamic model simulated vaccination of pre-adolescents in two scenarios: 1) vaccine uptake was correlated with factors which also affect sexual partner choice ("correlated"); 2) vaccine uptake was unrelated to these factors ("unrelated"). Coverage and degree of heterogeneity in uptake were informed by observed data from Australia and the USA. Population impact was examined via the effect on incident HPV16 infections. The rate ratio for post-vaccination incident HPV16 in the lowest compared to the highest coverage subgroup (RR(L)) was calculated to quantify between-group differences in outcomes.
resultsThe population-level incremental impact of adding males was lower if vaccine uptake was "correlated", however the difference in population-level impact was extremely small (<1%) in the Australia and USA scenarios, even under the conservative and extreme assumption that subgroups according to coverage did not mix at all sexually. At the subgroup level, "correlated" female-only vaccination resulted in RR(L)= 1.9 (Australia) and 1.5 (USA) in females, and RR(L)= 1.5 and 1.3 in males. "Correlated" both-sex vaccination increased RR(L) to 4.2 and 2.1 in females and 3.9 and 2.0 in males in the Australia and USA scenarios respectively.
conclusionsThe population-level incremental impact of male vaccination is unlikely to be substantially impacted by feasible levels of heterogeneity in uptake. However, these findings emphasize the continuing importance of prioritizing high coverage across all groups in HPV vaccination programs in terms of achieving equality of outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.