Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39231505›Full record

ReviewInfection & chemotherapy2024

A Review of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination and Associated Ethical Concerns.

Eric Fu, Ozdemir Erdemir, Khalil Pathan, Meaghan Brophy, Aidan Pettit

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Infection & chemotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eric FuUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. eric.fu@cuanschutz.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3578-117X
Ozdemir ErdemirDrexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7933-5179
Khalil PathanGeorgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5918-7660
Meaghan BrophyGeorgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7132-6495
Aidan PettitGeorgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3353-9577

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its Fast-Track approval by the Federal Drug Administration, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been marked by controversies. Unconfirmed reports of adverse events in both Japan and Denmark led to suspensions of national vaccination programs, which setback the fight against cervical cancer and associated mortality and morbidity. Despite follow-up studies of vaccine adverse reports, additional randomized control trials, and review reports from both the World Health Organization and the European Commission, there is still a great deal of hesitancy around the vaccine. While all three version of the HPV vaccine have been shown to be efficacious and safe, additional ethical dilemmas deserve to be considered as well.

Indexed as

HPV vaccineHuman papillomavirusVaccine ethicsVaccine hesitancyVaccine safety

Identifiers

PMID39231505
PMCPMC11704856

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.