Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25249360›Full record

SynthesisDeutsches Arzteblatt international2014

The efficacy and duration of vaccine protection against human papillomavirus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yvonne Deleré, Ole Wichmann, Stefanie J Klug, Marianne van der Sande, Martin Terhardt, Fred Zepp, Thomas Harder

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in Germany.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Questionable pooling of data.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015
    Article
  20. In reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Yvonne DeleréImmunization Unit, Robert Koch Institute Berlin, Cancer Epidemiology, University Cancer Center, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, Epidemiology and Surveillance Unit, RIVM-Centre Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven and Julius Centre Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Outpatient clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Ratingen, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.
Ole Wichmann
Stefanie J Klug
Marianne van der Sande
Martin Terhardt
Fred Zepp
Thomas Harder
University Hospital and Clinics · USRobert Koch Institute · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) recommends vaccination against human papillomaviruses (HPV) of the high-risk types 16 and 18. The duration of protection afforded by HPV vaccines has been reported in multiple studies to date but has not been systematically evaluated.

methodSystematic literature review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of vaccination, with assessment of evidence by the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

results15 studies were identified: 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 observational studies. The RCTs included a total of 46 436 participants. The duration of follow-up was short (median, 3 years) in 8 RCTs and long (median, 6 years) in 2 RCTs. During the period of short-term follow up, the pooled efficacy of vaccination for the study endpoint of incident HPV infection (percentage of infections prevented) was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70-90% ), while the pooled efficacy against persistent HPV infection was 90% (95% CI: 79-95% ). In this period, CIN 2+ lesions were prevented with 84% efficacy (95% CI: 50-95% ), and CIN 3+ lesions with 94% efficacy (95% CI: 83-98% ). During the period of long-term follow-up, incident infections were prevented with 94% efficacy (95% CI: 80-98% ) and persistent infections with 95% efficacy (95% CI: 84-99% ). The long-term efficacy against CIN 2+ lesions was 86% (95% CI: -166-99% ). No data are available on the long-term efficacy of vaccination against CIN 3+ lesions.

conclusionLong-term observation does not indicate any loss of antiviral protection after vaccination against HPV 16 and 18, although the evidence for long-term protection is of lesser quality than that for short-term protection.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansMass VaccinationMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPrevalenceRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung AdultPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID25249360
PMCPMC4174682
OpenAlexW135135301

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.