Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28455577›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2017

[One decade of HPV vaccination in Germany].

P Schneede

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

P SchneedeUrologische Klinik, Klinikum Memmingen, Bismarckstraße 23, 87700, Memmingen, Deutschland. Peter.Schneede@klinikum-memmingen.de.
Kernkraftwerk Gundremmingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a worldwide very common sexually transmitted infection (STI), HPV causes millions of genital warts every year and is responsible for 5% of all cancers in men and women. With strong empirical evidence for both vaccine safety and efficacy, the HPV vaccines proved to protect against these HPV-related conditions over the last decade. But current HPV vaccination coverage is suboptimal in many countries. Even in Germany the absence of a school-based immunization program and the recommendation of a publicly funded girls-only HPV vaccination strategy are the main reasons for a female coverage rate under 40%, which does not achieve herd immunity for the boys. Therefore, the German immunization program urgently needs revision to fight an increasing number of young Germans missing out on the most important development in cancer prevention. Gender-neutral bundling of the HPV vaccine to other routinely recommended vaccines for preteens at one visit will have many advantages at the same time: Lowering the age of HPV vaccination to 9-12 years will improve the cost-effectiveness because a two-dose vaccination schedule is established on this score. Time-consuming and redundant explanations of the attending physician as well as parent's discussion on feeling stigmatized by the STI nature of HPV could be avoided in a combined vaccination setting. By expanding the HPV vaccination to boys, the resulting gender-neutral vaccination program can be cost-effective if all HPV-related diseases which can be prevented by vaccination are considered.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGermanyHealth PromotionHumansMaleMass VaccinationMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPrevalenceRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomePapillomavirus VaccinesCancer preventionCost calculationCost-effectivenessGenital wartsInfection, sexually transmitted

Identifiers

PMID28455577
OpenAlexW2609985800

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.