ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
State-level disparities in cervical cancer prevention and outcomes in the United States: a modeling study.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geographic and temporal variations in cancer incidence attributable to human papillomavirus infection in China: a population-based study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Public health impact of increasing human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Cervical Cancer in the Era of HPV: Translating Molecular Mechanisms into Preventive Public Health Action.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Calculating epidemiological outcomes from simulated longitudinal data.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines' availability for over a decade, coverage across the United States varies. Although some states have tried to increase HPV vaccination coverage, most model-based analyses focus on national impacts. We evaluated hypothetical changes in HPV vaccination coverage at the national and state levels for California, New York, and Texas using a mathematical model.
methodsWe developed a new mathematical model of HPV transmission and cervical cancer, creating national- and state-level models, incorporating country- and state-specific vaccination coverage and cervical cancer incidence and mortality. We quantified the national- and state-level impact of increasing HPV vaccination coverage to 80% by 2025 or 2030 on cervical cancer outcomes and the time to elimination defined as less than 4 per 100 000 women.
resultsIncreasing vaccination coverage to 80% in Texas over 10 years could reduce cervical cancer incidence by 50.9% (95% credible interval [CrI] = 46.6%-56.1%) by 2100, from 1.58 (CrI = 1.19-2.09) to 0.78 (CrI = 0.57-1.02) per 100 000 women. Similarly, New York could see a 27.3% (CrI = 23.9%-31.5%) reduction from 1.43 (CrI = 0.93-2.07) to 1.04 (CrI = 0.66-1.53) per 100 000 women, and California a 24.4% (CrI = 20.0%-30.0%) reduction from 1.01 (CrI = 0.66-1.44) to 0.76 (CrI = 0.50-1.09) per 100 000 women. Achieving 80% coverage in 5 years will provide slightly larger and sooner reductions. If the vaccination coverage levels in 2019 continue, cervical cancer elimination could occur nationally by 2051 (CrI = 2034-2064), but state timelines may vary by decades.
conclusionTargeting an HPV vaccination coverage of 80% by 2030 will disproportionately benefit states with low coverage and higher cervical cancer incidence. Geographically focused analyses can better inform priorities.
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.