ReviewBritish journal of cancer2024
Predictable changes in the accuracy of human papillomavirus tests after vaccination: review with implications for performance monitoring in cervical screening.
Review in British journal of cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Validation of a Vaginal Cervical Cancer Screening Self-Collection Method for At-Home Use: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- PAX1 and ZNF582 Methylation as a Triage Strategy in Cytologic and hrHPV+ Scrapings in Both Chinese and Dutch Cohorts.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Indicators to identify cancer screening providers with suboptimal case detection: A scoping review.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Prevalence and genotype distribution of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer and precancer in Japan between 2012 and 2025: a retrospective single-center study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- HPV Vaccine: An Effective but Underutilized Prevention Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Digital Pathology with AI for Cervical Biopsies: Diagnostic Accuracy at the CIN2+ Threshold.Cancers · 2025Article
- Article
- Discontinuation of cervical cancer screening for HPV-vaccinated women?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is changing the performance of cytology as a cervical screening test, but its effect on HPV testing is unclear. We review the effect of HPV16/18 vaccination on the epidemiology and the detection of HPV infections and high-grade cervical lesions (CIN2+) to evaluate the likely direction of changes in HPV test accuracy. The reduction in HPV16/18 infections and cross-protection against certain non-16/18 high-risk genotypes, most notably 31, 33, and/or 45, will likely increase the test's specificity but decrease its positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN2+. Post-vaccination viral unmasking of non-16/18 genotypes due to fewer HPV16 co-infections might reduce the specificity and the PPV for CIN2+. Post-vaccination clinical unmasking exposing a higher frequency of CIN2+ related to non-16/18 high-risk genotypes is likely to increase the specificity and the PPV of HPV tests. The effect of HPV16/18 vaccination on HPV test sensitivity is difficult to predict based on these changes alone. Programmes relying on HPV detection for primary screening should monitor the frequency of false-positive and false-negative tests in vaccinated (younger) vs. unvaccinated (older) cohorts, to assess the outcomes and performance of their service.
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.