Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31962050›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2020

Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer?

Claire P Rees, Petra Brhlikova, Allyson M Pollock

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Bad science in a plastic world.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2020
    Article
  13. HPV Vaccines - An Overview.Indian journal of dermatology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Claire P ReesCentre for Global Public Health, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University, London E1 2AB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5649-7835
Petra BrhlikovaInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4AX, UK.
Allyson M PollockInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4AX, UK.
Newcastle University · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted a critical appraisal of published Phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer in women. Our analysis shows the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy in these data. There were 12 randomised control trials (RCTs) of Cervarix and Gardasil. The trial populations did not reflect vaccination target groups due to differences in age and restrictive trial inclusion criteria. The use of composite and distant surrogate outcomes makes it impossible to determine effects on clinically significant outcomes. It is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop. Although there is evidence that vaccination prevents cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) this is not a clinically important outcome (no treatment is given). Trials used composite surrogate outcomes which included CIN1. High efficacy against CIN1+ (CIN1, 2, 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)) does not necessarily mean high efficacy against CIN3+ (CIN3 and AIS), which occurs much less frequently. There are too few data to clearly conclude that HPV vaccine prevents CIN3+. CIN in general is likely to have been overdiagnosed in the trials because cervical cytology was conducted at intervals of 6-12 months rather than at the normal screening interval of 36 months. This means that the trials may have overestimated the efficacy of the vaccine as some of the lesions would have regressed spontaneously. Many trials diagnosed persistent infection on the basis of frequent testing at short intervals, i.e. less than six months. There is uncertainty as to whether detected infections would clear or persist and lead to cervical changes.

Indexed as

Human Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine Quadrivalent, Types 6, 11, 16, 18Papillomavirus VaccinesClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicFemaleHumansPapillomavirus InfectionsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeUterine Cervical NeoplasmsHuman Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine Quadrivalent, Types 6, 11, 16, 18human papillomavirus vaccine, L1 type 16, 18Papillomavirus Vaccinescervical cancerVaccination programmes

Identifiers

PMID31962050
PMCPMC7068772
OpenAlexW2996238584

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.