SynthesisJournal of immunology research2015
Are the Two Human Papillomavirus Vaccines Really Similar? A Systematic Review of Available Evidence: Efficacy of the Two Vaccines against HPV.
Synthesis in Journal of immunology research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 256 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for successful designing of immunocontraceptive vaccines and recent updates in vaccine development against sexually transmitted infections - A review.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Review
- Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2020Review
- Cost-Utility of a Two-Dose Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Programme Added to Cervical Cancer Screening Compared with Cervical Cancer Screening Alone in KoreaAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of two-dose human papillomavirus vaccination in Singapore.Singapore medical journal · 2018Article
- Efficacy of Nd:YAG laser therapy for the treatment of verrucae: a literature review.Lasers in medical science · 2017Review
- Response letter regarding the letter to the editors by Brown et al.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Article
- Corrigendum to "Are the Two Human Papillomavirus Vaccines Really Similar? A Systematic Review of Available Evidence: Efficacy of the Two Vaccines against HPV".Journal of immunology researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen the bivalent and the quadrivalent HPV vaccines were marketed they were presented as having comparable efficacy against cervical cancer. Differences between the vaccines are HPV types included and formulation of the adjuvant.
methodA systematic review was conducted to assess the efficacy of the two vaccines against cervical cancer. Outcomes considered were CIN2+, CIN3+, and AIS.
resultsNine reports (38,419 women) were included. At enrollment mean age of women was 20 years, 90% had negative cytology, and 80% were seronegative and/or DNA negative for HPV 16 or 18 (naïve women). In the TVC-naïve, VE against CIN2+ was 58% (95% CI: 35, 72); heterogeneity was detected, VE being 65% (95% CI: 54, 74) for the bivalent and 43% (95% CI: 23, 57) for the quadrivalent. VE against CIN3+ was 78% (95% CI: <0, 97); heterogeneity was substantial, VE being 93% (95% CI: 77, 98) for the bivalent and 43% (95% CI: 12, 63) for the quadrivalent. VE in the TVC was much lower. No sufficient data were available on AIS.
conclusionsIn naïve girls bivalent vaccine shows higher efficacy, even if the number of events detected is low. In women already infected the benefit of the vaccination seems negligible.
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.