Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36146638›Full record

ReviewVaccines2022

The Effectiveness of Therapeutic Vaccines for the Treatment of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 3: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cathy Ventura, Ângelo Luís, Christiane P Soares, Aldo Venuti, Francesca Paolini, Luísa Pereira, Ângela Sousa

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cathy VenturaCICS-UBI-Health Science Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, Av. Infante D. Henrique, 6200-506 Covilhã, Portugal.
Ângelo LuísCICS-UBI-Health Science Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, Av. Infante D. Henrique, 6200-506 Covilhã, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0712-6522
Christiane P SoaresDepartment of Clinical Analysis, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Campus Ville, Araraquara 14800-903, SP, Brazil.
Aldo VenutiHPV-UNIT-UOSD Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Francesca PaoliniHPV-UNIT-UOSD Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Luísa PereiraGrupo de Revisões Sistemáticas (GRUBI), Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade da Beira Interior, 6200-506 Covilhã, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-9068-4607
Ângela SousaCICS-UBI-Health Science Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, Av. Infante D. Henrique, 6200-506 Covilhã, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-9155-7581
University of Beira Interior · PTUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia UIDB/00709/2020; UIDP/00709/2020.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) is a disease that affects many women worldwide, especially in low-income countries. The human papilloma virus (HPV) is the main causative agent of this disease, with the E6 and E7 oncoproteins being responsible for the development and maintenance of transformed status. In addition, HPV is also responsible for the appearance of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), a pre-neoplastic condition burdened by very high costs for its screening and therapy. So far, only prophylactic vaccines have been approved by regulatory agencies as a means of CC prevention. However, these vaccines cannot treat HPV-positive women. A search was conducted in several databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) to systematically identify clinical trials involving therapeutic vaccines against CIN 3. Histopathological regression data, immunological parameters, safety, DNA clearance, and vaccine efficacy were considered from each selected study, and from the 102 articles found, 8 were selected based on the defined inclusion criteria. Histopathological regression from CIN 3 to CIN < 1 was 22.1% (95% CI: 0.627−0.967; p-value = 0.024), showing a vaccine efficacy of 23.6% (95% CI; 0.666−0.876; p-value < 0.001). DNA clearance was assessed, and the risk of persistent HPV DNA was 23.2% (95% CI: 0.667−0.885; p-value < 0.001). Regarding immunological parameters, immune responses by specific T-HPV cells were more likely in vaccinated women (95% CI: 1.245−9.162; p-value = 0.017). In short, these studies favored the vaccine group over the placebo group. This work indicated that therapeutic vaccines are efficient in the treatment of CIN 3, even after accounting for publication bias.

Indexed as

cervical cancerclinical trialsmeta-analysissystematic reviewtherapeutics vaccines

Identifiers

PMID36146638
PMCPMC9500864
OpenAlexW4296758128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.