ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2020
Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer?
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing Cervical Cancer Screening: New Diagnostic Methodologies, Triage, and Risk Stratification in Prevention and Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advances in HPV-Associated Cervical Cancer Dynamic Modelling for Prevention and Control Evaluation.China CDC weekly · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in Tunisia: a modelling study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- The effect of participatory action research on HPV primary preventive measures among in-school adolescents in Benue State, Nigeria.BMC public health · 2024Article
- From awareness to action: Unveiling knowledge, attitudes and testing strategies to enhance human papillomavirus vaccination uptake in Jordan.Journal of virus eradication · 2024Article
- The Role of Scientific Research in Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Discussions on Twitter: Social Network Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Clinical applications and utility of cell-free DNA-based liquid biopsy analyses in cervical cancer and its precursor lesions.British journal of cancer · 2022Review
- Clinical significance of miR-1298 in cervical cancer and its biological functionOncology letters · 2021Article
- Review
- Deceptology in cancer and vaccine sciences: Seeds of immune destruction-mini electric shocks in mitochondria: Neuroplasticity-electrobiology of response profiles and increased induced diseases in four generations - A hypothesis.Clinical and translational medicine · 2020Review
- Comment on "Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer".BMC medicine · 2020Article
- Bad science in a plastic world.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2020Article
- HPV Vaccines - An Overview.Indian journal of dermatologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.