Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25598867›Full record

ArticleOnline journal of public health informatics2014

Surveillance of human papilloma virus using reference laboratory data for the purpose of evaluating vaccine impact.

Andrew R Wilson, Ryan J Welch, Mia Hashibe, Jessica Greenwood, Brian Jackson, Rosemary C She

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Online journal of public health informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Andrew R WilsonUniversity of Utah Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ryan J WelchARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Mia HashibeUniversity of Utah Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Jessica GreenwoodUniversity of Utah Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Brian JacksonARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Rosemary C SheKeck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nationwide positivity rates of high-risk human papillomavirus for the United States before and since the introduction of a Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in 2006 would provide insight into the population impact of HPV vaccination. Data for high-risk HPV testing results from January 1, 2004 to June 1, 2013 at a national reference laboratory were retrospectively analyzed to produce 757,761 patient records of women between the ages of 14 and 59. Generalized linear models and finite mixture models were utilized to eliminate sources of bias and establish a population undergoing standard gynecological screening. Unadjusted positivity rates for high-risk HPV were 27.2% for all age groups combined. Highest rates occurred in women aged 14 to 19. While the positivity rates decreased for all age groups from 2004 to 2013, the higher age categories showed less downward trend following vaccine introduction, and the two age categories 20 to 24 and 25 to 29 showed a significantly different downward trend between pre- and post-vaccine time periods (-0.1% per year to -1.5% per year, and 0.4% per year to -1.5% per year, respectively). All other age groups had rates of change that became less negative, indicating a slower rate of decline.

Indexed as

Human PapillomavirusSurveillanceVaccine

Identifiers

PMID25598867
PMCPMC4292532

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.