Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40093195›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025

The effect of bivalent HPV vaccination against invasive cervical cancer and CIN3+ in the Netherlands: a national linkage study.

Marit Middeldorp, Jesca G M Brouwer, Janneke W Duijster, Mirjam J Knol, Folkert J van Kemenade, Albert G Siebers, Johannes Berkhof, Hester E de Melker

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marit Middeldorp
Jesca G M Brouwer
Janneke W Duijster
Mirjam J Knol
Folkert J van Kemenade
Albert G Siebers
Johannes Berkhof
Hester E de Melker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The protective effect of HPV vaccination against cervical cancer has been demonstrated in registry linkage studies. The start age of screening in those studies was lower than 25 years. We estimated the vaccine effectiveness of bivalent HPV16/18 vaccination against invasive cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3+) in the Netherlands where routine screening starts at age 30 years. Methods: We linked the vaccination status of women born in year 1993 who were eligible for HPV vaccination at age 16 years with histopathological results recorded in the nationwide pathology databank (Palga). Cumulative risks of invasive cervical cancer and CIN3+ were estimated for fully vaccinated (3 doses or 2 doses ≥150 days apart), partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated women. Vaccine effectiveness estimates were adjusted for differences in screening participation between the vaccine groups. Findings: A total of 103,059 women were included, of whom 47,130 were fully vaccinated, 5,098 were partially vaccinated, and 50,831 were unvaccinated. Five (0·011%) cancers were observed in fully vaccinated, two (0·039%) in partially vaccinated, and 42 (0·083%) in unvaccinated women. The vaccine effectiveness in fully vaccinated women was 91·5% (95% CI 78·9, 96·6) against cancer and 81·2% (95% CI 78·4, 83·7) against CIN3+. The vaccine effectiveness in partially vaccinated women was 48·1% (95% CI -56·8, 82·8) against cancer and 58·4% (95% CI 45·3, 68·3) against CIN3+. Interpretation: The high effectiveness of bivalent HPV vaccination against cervical cancer and CIN3+ and the low cancer incidence supports a screening start age of 30 years in vaccinated women. Research in context:

Identifiers

PMID40093195
PMCPMC11908324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.