Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38014729›Full record

ArticleInfection & chemotherapy2024

Comparative Effects of Bivalent, Quadrivalent, and Nonavalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccines in The Prevention of Genotype-Specific Infection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Jimin Kim, Young June Choe, Jungeun Park, Jahyun Cho, Chelim Cheong, Jin-Kyoung Oh, Mihai Park, Eunha Shim, Su-Yeon Yu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection & chemotherapy, 2024. 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
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Jimin Kim *Division for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7375-4274
Young June Choe *Department of Pediatrics, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2733-0715
Jungeun ParkDivision for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1129-5495
Jahyun ChoGraduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6008-3774
Chelim CheongHealthcare Insight Research, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5136-6764
Jin-Kyoung OhDepartment of Cancer Control and Population Health, National Cancer Center Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9331-3054
Mihai ParkSchool of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8481-5503
Eunha ShimDepartment of Mathematics, Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-6360
Su-Yeon YuDivision for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5488-5068
National Evidenc- based healthcare Collaborating Agency · KRInsight Healthcare · GBKongju National University · KRKorea University Medical Center · KRNational Cancer Center · KRSeoul National University · KRSoongsil University · KRSungkyunkwan University · KR

Funding

Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency 2021-10-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major global disease burden and the main cause of cervical cancer. Certain HPV genotypes, with are the most common etiologic pathogens and cause a significant disease burden, are being targeted for vaccine development. However, few studies have focused on the comparative effectiveness of the bivalent HPV (2v-HPV), quadrivalent HPV (4v-HPV), and nonavalent HPV (9v-HPV) vaccines against HPV strain-specific infection. This study investigated the comparative effects of these vaccines against genotype-specific infection. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a pairwise and network meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials of HPV vaccines according to sex and HPV infection status for nine HPV genotypes (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58).

resultsOverall, 10 randomized controlled trials (12 articles) were included in this study. In the network meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in the prevention of carcinogenic HPV strains (16/18/31/33/45/52/58) between the 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in female HPV infection-naïve populations. However, the 9v-HPV vaccine showed a significantly superior effect compared with 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in preventing HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections. Although 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines provided some cross-protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections, the effect was significant only on HPV 31 infection. For HPV 16 and 18, neither statistically significant nor small differences were found in the prevention of HPV infection among the 2v-HPV, 4v-HPV, and 9v-HPV vaccines.

conclusionOur study complements previous understanding of how the effect of HPV vaccines differs according to the HPV genotype. This is important because HPV genotype prevalence varies among countries. We advocate for continued efforts in vaccinating against HPV, while public health agencies should consider the difference in the vaccine effect and HPV genotype prevalence when implementing HPV vaccination in public vaccination programs.

Indexed as

Comparative effectiveness ResearchNetwork meta-analysisPapillomavirus infectionsPapillomavirus vaccines

Identifiers

PMID38014729
PMCPMC10990884
OpenAlexW4389071332

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.