ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Positive predictive value of cervical cancer screening results recommended for colposcopy by human papillomavirus vaccination status at 3 U.S. healthcare systems.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe positive predictive value (PPV) of cervical cancer screening was projected to decrease in the era of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at three U.S. healthcare systems during 2010-2018. Females aged 21-38 years with an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result for which colposcopy was guideline-recommended were included. We estimated age-specific PPVs of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnosis (≥ CIN 2) in HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated females.
resultsThe age-specific PPV point estimates were lower in vaccinated versus unvaccinated females in each age group (21-24; 25-29; and 30-38 years), but the difference was statistically significant only among 25-29-year-olds (PPV = 16.4% [95% CI (confidence interval), 14.6-18.4%] and PPV = 19.8% [95% CI 18.5-21.1%], respectively). Among vaccinated 25-29-year-olds, the PPV was lower in those who received their first dose at ≤ 20 versus > 20 years of age (PPV = 12.1% [95% CI 9.5-15.2%] and PPV = 18.8% [95% CI 16.4-21.4%], respectively). Among all age groups combined, the PPV was lower in vaccinated versus unvaccinated females.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that among females with a cervical test result recommended for colposcopy, the PPV for ≥ CIN2 was lower in those vaccinated versus unvaccinated, and was relatively lower in those vaccinated at younger ages. Future studies will have greater ability to estimate the impact of vaccination at the recommended age (9-12 years) on the PPV as more recent birth cohorts, who had greater vaccine uptake, age-in to screening eligibility.
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.