ReviewVaccines2025
The Role of Internet Information on Anti-HPV Vaccines: A Comprehensive Overview of a Double-Edged Sword.
Review in Vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing HPV vaccine hesitancy and misinformation in India through public health communication strategies.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Beyond Vaccine Efficacy: Redefining the Next Era of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination.Vaccines · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of health information about altitude sickness on Douyin and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Latent profiles of HPV vaccine-related health beliefs and their associations with vaccination intention among college students: a global health perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Multilevel Barriers to Perianal Condyloma Care Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Northeast China.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Evolving Public Attitudes Towards the HPV Vaccine in China: A Fine-Grained Emotion Analysis of Sina Weibo (2016 vs. 2024).Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer (CC) is the only cancer that has the possibility of primary and secondary prevention. Despite this, it is one of the leading causes of cancer death among women, especially in developing countries. The World Health Organization has set the ambitious goal of eliminating CC by 2030 by suggesting specific types of intervention. Unfortunately, to date, we are very far from this goal at a global level, including developed countries. Implementing vaccination coverage among the target population is one of the strategies to be pursued in this area. Achieving this goal should include combating misinformation about the HPV vaccine, which is one of the main reasons for vaccination hesitancy. Such conspiracy theories are prevalent on social media, one of the primary sources of information for adults and adolescents today. In this regard, the Internet plays a significant role in disseminating information about the HPV vaccine, both positively and negatively. The Internet provides easy access to information about the HPV vaccine, including its safety, efficacy, recommended dosing schedule, and potential side effects. It may promote vaccine advocacy and debunking vaccine myths. On the other hand, the Internet may be the place for disseminating misinformation and influencing vaccine decision making. It is a double-edged sword in shaping public discourse and perceptions about the HPV vaccine. This overview aims to assess the literature on this topic in depth to promote evidence-based information, analyze the social channels through which misinformation spreads, and leverage digital health interventions essential for promoting HPV vaccination and reducing the burden of HPV-related diseases.
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.