Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35965239›Full record

SynthesisVaccine2022

Human papillomavirus vaccine effectiveness by number of doses: Updated systematic review of data from national immunization programs.

Lauri E Markowitz, Mélanie Drolet, Rayleen M Lewis, Philippe Lemieux-Mellouki, Norma Pérez, Mark Jit, Julia M Brotherton, Gina Ogilvie, Aimée R Kreimer, Marc Brisson

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Vaccine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Lauri E MarkowitzNational Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: lem2@cdc.gov.
Mélanie DroletCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Axe santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Québec, Canada.
Rayleen M LewisNational Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Synergy America, Inc, Duluth, GA, USA.
Philippe Lemieux-MelloukiCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Axe santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Québec, Canada.
Norma PérezCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Axe santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Québec, Canada.
Mark JitLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Julia M BrothertonPopulation Health, VCS Foundation, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gina OgilvieUniversity of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada.
Aimée R KreimerNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Marc BrissonCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Axe santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Québec, Canada; Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université Laval, Québec, Canada; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Université Laval · CACenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNational Institutes of Health · USThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series. Two doses are now widely recommended in some age groups; there are data suggesting high efficacy with one dose. We updated a systematic literature review of HPV vaccine effectiveness by number of doses in observational studies.

methodsWe searched Medline and Embase databases from January 1, 2007, through September 29, 2021. Data were extracted and summarized in a narrative synthesis. We also conducted quality assessments for bias due to selection, information, and confounding.

resultsOverall, 35 studies were included; all except one were conducted within the context of a recommended three-dose schedule. Evaluations were in countries that used bivalent HPV vaccine (seven), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (27) or both (one). Nine evaluated effectiveness against HPV infection, ten anogenital warts, and 16 cervical abnormalities. All studies were judged to have moderate or serious risk of bias. The biases rated as serious would likely result in lower effectiveness with fewer doses. Investigators attempted to control for or stratify by potentially important variables, such as age at vaccination. Eight studies evaluated impact of buffer periods (lag time) for case counting and 10 evaluated different intervals between doses for two-dose vaccine recipients. Studies that stratified by vaccination age found higher effectiveness with younger age at vaccination, although differences were not all formally tested. Most studies found highest estimates of effectiveness with three doses; significant effectiveness was found among 28/29 studies that evaluated three doses, 19/29 that evaluated two doses, and 18/30 that evaluated one dose. Some studies that adjusted or stratified analyses by age at vaccination found similar effectiveness with three, two and one doses.

conclusionObservational studies of HPV vaccine effectiveness have many biases. Studies examining persons vaccinated prior to sexual activity and using methods to reduce sources of bias are needed for valid effectiveness estimates.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImmunization ProgramsVaccinationVaccine EfficacyPapillomavirus VaccinesHPVHPV vaccineHuman papillomavirusVaccine effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID35965239
PMCPMC9768820
OpenAlexW4291123588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.