Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36971102›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of STD & AIDS2023

A targeted literature review of health economic analyses of human papillomavirus vaccination from various countries.

Hannah A Segal, Nazia Rashid

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of STD & AIDS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hannah A SegalBiological Sciences, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9368-4875
Nazia RashidSchool of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Keck Graduate Institute, Claremont, CA, United States.
Keck Graduate Institute · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the cost-effectiveness of the HPV vaccine from a global perspective is important to assess from a policy perspective and to support current and future HPV vaccination programs.

objectivesThe aim of this analysis was to conduct a targeted literature review of published pharmacoeconomic literature on the cost-effectiveness of the HPV vaccine to treat patients in various countries, with a focus on cost-savings and their impact on vaccine recommendations.

methodsWe searched cost-effectiveness studies in HPV published in peer-reviewed literature from 2012 to 2020 using MEDLINE via the PubMed database and Google Scholar.

resultsHPV vaccine cost-effectiveness was found to be greatest in low-income countries where screen programs were not yet in place, additionally, in adolescent males and females. The majority of the economic evaluations viewed the implementation of the HPV vaccine as cost-effective and recommended national HPV vaccination.

conclusionThe majority of economic studies favored national HPV vaccination for adolescent males and females in various countries. Feasibility of this strategy and implementation remains an open question, in addition to screening coverage rate in countries with no vaccine programs or countries yet to introduce national HPV vaccination.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdolescentCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansMaleVaccinationPapillomavirus Vaccinescervical cancer preventioneconomic analysisHuman papillomavirus vaccineliterature review

Identifiers

PMID36971102
PMCPMC10273851
OpenAlexW4361006516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.