ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2020
Letter to the editor: female sex workers and HPV vaccine.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor: female sex workers and HPV vaccine.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020Article
- Evaluating sexual health in sex workers and men who have sex with men: the SMESH cross-sectional protocol study.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Schim van der Loeff et al. weigh the pros and cons of offering HPV vaccines to female sex workers (FSWs). This is a pressing question in areas where the vaccine is not routinely available to all and vaccine resources are limited. In many countries, current FSWs would have missed the opportunity for vaccination as part of nationwide campaigns to reach school-age girls. Offering the HPV vaccine at the time of sex worker registration may protect them from acquiring high risk HPV types from future clients. A critical mistake in academic writing is excluding the population of interest from contributing to discussions about their health. Without the perspective of FSWs as authors, we are not engaging in good participatory practices.
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.