SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
Gender-neutral vs. gender-specific strategies in school-based HPV vaccination programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Age- and sex-related variation in ChatGPT-4o HPV vaccine recommendation style: A fixed-prompt audit.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Policies and Discourse on Social Media.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- Vaccination coverage among adolescent athletes: Patterns, gaps, and implications for sports medicine.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Multilevel Interventions Aimed at Improving HPV Immunization Coverage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Vaccines · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether gender-neutral (GN) or gender-specific (GS) strategies more effectively enhanced knowledge, intention, and uptake of HPV vaccination among students in educational settings. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library identified 17 randomized controlled trials encompassing 22,435 participants (14,665 females, 7,770 males). Random-effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) for knowledge and intention, and risk differences for vaccination uptake. Results: GN strategies achieved higher improvements in knowledge (SMD = 0.95) and intention (SMD = 0.59) compared with GS (SMD = 0.68 for knowledge, SMD = 0.14 for intention), and displayed a greater increase in uptake (5.7% versus 2.5% in GS), although this uptake difference was not statistically significant. Heterogeneity was more pronounced for knowledge outcomes and moderate for GS uptake results. Discussion: Despite GN approaches seemingly offering more robust enhancements in HPV-related knowledge and vaccination intention, additional research with robust designs and longer follow-up is required to determine whether GN interventions definitively outperform GS strategies in achieving statistically significant increases in actual vaccination uptake.
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.