ArticleClinical epidemiology2020
General Practitioner Attendance in Proximity to HPV Vaccination: A Nationwide, Register-Based, Matched Case-Control Study.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to describe and compare general practitioner (GP) attendance patterns in the years surrounding HPV-vaccination among cases suspected to experience adverse events and their matched controls in order to determine if a potential larger change in GP attendance among cases was observed in temporal relation to vaccination.
methodsRegister-based, matched case-control study. Cases were defined as women referred to specialized hospital settings (HPV-centers) for suspected adverse event between June 1st 2015 and December 31st 2015 (n=1458). Information on referral was obtained from the HPV-centers directly. Each case was matched with five controls on age at vaccination, region, time of first vaccine registration and total number of doses, resulting in a total study population of 8670 girls and women. Negative binomial regression analyses were used (i) to estimate mean yearly GP contacts among cases and controls, and (ii) to further investigate the relative difference in change in GP attendance following vaccination between cases and controls.
resultsOverall, cases displayed higher GP attendance than controls from five years before vaccination up until five years after. Compared to controls, cases increased their GP attendance more in the years following HPV vaccination, corresponding to a 40% increase in the incidence rate ratios (IRR) from before to after vaccination (ratio-IRR = 1.40 [1.36; 1.44]). The change occurred in close proximity to vaccination, and the pattern was the same independently of the year of vaccination. However, for the later vaccination years cases displayed an additional increase in their GP attendance around time of extensive media attention.
conclusionGirls and women being referred for suspected adverse events after HPV-vaccination changed their GP attendance pattern in close proximity to their first HPV-vaccination and not solely in temporal linkage to the onset of public debate.
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.