Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30180203›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

The health impact of human papillomavirus vaccination in the situation of primary human papillomavirus screening: A mathematical modeling study.

Suzette M Matthijsse, Steffie K Naber, Jan A C Hontelez, Roel Bakker, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Inge M C M de Kok, Harry J de Koning, Joost van Rosmalen, Sake J de Vlas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Suzette M MatthijsseDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Steffie K NaberDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jan A C HontelezDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9323-7861
Roel BakkerDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1958-0944
Marjolein van BallegooijenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Inge M C M de KokDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Joost van RosmalenDepartment of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9187-244X
Sake J de VlasDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and the implementation of primary HPV screening in the Netherlands will lead to a lower cervical disease burden. For evaluation and further improvement of prevention, it is important to estimate the magnitude and timing of health benefits of current and alternative vaccination strategies such as vaccination of boys or adults. METHODS AND

findingsWe evaluated the impact of the current girls-only vaccination program and alternative strategies on cervical disease burden among the first four vaccinated five-year birth cohorts, given the context of primary HPV screening. We integrated the existing microsimulation models STDSIM (HPV transmission model) and MISCAN-Cervix (cervical cancer screening model). Alternative vaccination strategies include: improved vaccination uptake, including routine boys vaccination, and offering adult vaccination at sexual health clinics. Our models show that the current vaccination program is estimated to reduce cervical cancers and cancer deaths by about 35% compared to primary HPV screening in the absence of vaccination. The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to gain 1 life year is 45. The most efficient alternative vaccination strategies are: 1) improving coverage of girls to 80% (NNV = 42); and 2) routine vaccination for girls and boys at 80% coverage (incremental NNV = 155), with cervical cancer mortality reductions estimated at 50% and 60% respectively.

conclusionsWhile the current program already substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality, prevention can be further improved by increasing vaccination uptake and extending vaccination to boys. As not all cervical cancer deaths will be prevented, screening participation should still be encouraged.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningPapillomavirus VaccinesVaccinationAdultAgedChildCohort StudiesFemaleHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID30180203
PMCPMC6122803
OpenAlexW2891081576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.