ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs2024
A cervical cancer control strategy for lower-resource settings: interventions to complement one-dose HPV vaccination.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenging the assumption that experience- and training-related factors improve accuracy of cervical cancer screening image interpretation: Evidence from Tanzania.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Scaling HPV Self-Sampling in Low-Resource Settings: From Evidence to Sustainable Implementation.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Initial evaluation of a new cervical screening strategy combining human papillomavirus genotyping and automated visual evaluation: the Human Papillomavirus-Automated Visual Evaluation Consortium.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One-dose prophylactic HPV vaccination of pre-adolescents may reduce cervical cancer deaths dramatically in lower-resource settings, but the benefits of achieving immediate high coverage among pre-adolescents would not be realized for 20 to 40 years. Prophylactic vaccine efficacy is reduced after sexual debut, and current therapeutic intervention candidates designed to treat existing HPV infections or precancerous lesions have yielded insufficient evidence to warrant widespread use. However, we are developing a feasible, scalable, high-quality cervical screening approach that could prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, while we work to achieve high coverage of one-dose vaccination for adolescent cohorts. A time-limited "one screen" campaign approach for lower-resource settings could complement parallel efforts to achieve high coverage with one-dose vaccination. This screen-triage-treat strategy would target the highest risk groups of screening age (ie, 25 to 49 years) for once-in-a-lifetime HPV testing of self-collected samples using a low-cost accurate HPV test; subsequent triage relying on extended genotyping and a validated deep-learning algorithm for automated visual evaluation (AVE) would stratify management based on risk to provide treatment for those most likely to develop cancer without overburdening health care systems. Early efficacy of this approach has been demonstrated in 9 countries within the HPV-AVE (PAVE) Study Consortium. We estimate that the cost per death averted of a screen-triage-treat campaign is of similar magnitude to prophylactic vaccination. We do not envision perpetual investment in ubiquitous brick-and-mortar screening programs if "one dose, one screen" is implemented with high coverage and targets the highest-risk populations. In collaboration with in-country stakeholders, efforts to ensure acceptability, risk communication, and cost-effectiveness are underway.
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.