SynthesisPloS one2020
Cost-effectiveness evaluations of the 9-Valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: Evidence from a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Umbrella Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccine in China: a systematic review of modelling studies.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Population-Based Incidence of Guillain-Barré Syndrome During Mass Immunization With Viral Vaccines: A Pooled Analysis.Frontiers in immunologyPooled it
- Impact of switching from a quadrivalent to a nonavalent HPV vaccine on HPV infections and cervical cancer in Colombia: a mathematical modelling study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- A Pocket Manual for Human Papillomavirus Vaccines.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Methodological drivers, reporting completeness, and transferability in HPV vaccination economic evaluations: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Construction of a localized immune nicheActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026Article
- Addressing male HPV vaccination in China: A narrative review of challenges and opportunities.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Assessing the influence of male vaccination on cervical cancer elimination in China under different vaccination coverage scenarios: A modeling study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- The effects of human papillomavirus vaccination in Japan.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Factors influencing HPV vaccination willingness among male college students in Jinan according to the health belief model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Modelling epidemiological and economics processes - the case of cervical cancer.Health economics review · 2025Review
- Burden of HPV-induced diseases and cost effectiveness of catch-up vaccination in Czech Republic: a model-based study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Strategies to accelerate cervical cancer elimination in Greece: a modeling study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Hospitalization burden associated with anus and penis neoplasm in Spain (2016-2020).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Observational
- Article
- Associations of geographic-based socioeconomic factors and HPV vaccination among male and female children in five US states.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Review
- A targeted literature review of health economic analyses of human papillomavirus vaccination from various countries.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2023Review
- Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer in Bulgaria.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs are established to be cost-effective before implementation. WHO recommends HPV vaccination for girls aged 9-13 years to tackle the high burden of cervical cancer. This review examined the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the 9-valent HPV vaccine within a global context.
methodsThe literature search covering a period of January 2000 to 31 July 2019 was conducted in PubMed and Scopus bibliographic databases. A combined checklist (i.e., WHO, Drummond and CHEERS) was used to examine the quality of eligible studies. A total of 12 studies were eligible for this review and most of them were conducted in developed countries.
resultsDespite some heterogeneity in approaches to measure cost-effectiveness, ten studies concluded that 9vHPV vaccination was cost-effective and two did not. The addition of adolescent boys into immunisation programs was cost effective when vaccine price and coverage was comparatively low. When vaccination coverage for females was more than 75%, gender neutral HPV vaccination was less cost-effective than vaccination targeting only girls aged 9-18 years. Multi cohort immunization approach was found cost-effective in the age range of 9-14 years. However, the upper age limit at which vaccination was found not cost-effective requires further evaluation. This review identified duration of vaccine protection, time horizon, vaccine price, coverage, healthcare costs, efficacy and discounting rates as the most dominating parameters in determining cost-effectiveness.
conclusionsThese findings have implications in extending HPV immunization programs whether switching to the 9-valent vaccine or the inclusion of adolescent boys' vaccination or extending the age of vaccination. Further, this review also supports extending vaccination programs to low-resource settings where vaccine prices are competitive, donor funding is available, burden of cervical cancer is high and screening options are limited.
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.