ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Public health impact of increasing human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer poses a substantial burden in the United States. State-level decision makers need to understand the expected benefits of implementing interventions to reduce this burden. This study aimed to estimate the long-term state-level benefits of interventions to reduce the burden of cervical cancer.
methodsWe used a simulation model to estimate the expected reductions in cervical cancer incidence and mortality by achieving 80% (or 90%) vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13-17 years by 2030 and increasing screening uptake by 5% among women aged 21-65 years across all 50 US states who had never been screened. We modeled 1 status quo scenario and 3 intervention scenarios: increasing vaccination only, increasing screening only, and increasing both vaccination and screening. The benefits of each intervention were presented as the cumulative reduction in cancer incidence and mortality compared with the status quo over a 100-year analytic period.
resultsCompared with the status quo, the cumulative reduction from the "increase in vaccination coverage only" scenario varied substantially by state, generally being higher in Southern and Western states. The greatest reductions were predicted for Mississippi, with 253.1 cases and 80.0 deaths per 100 000 women. The "increase in both vaccination and screening" scenario reduced cancer incidence from 9.2 (Utah) to 266.0 (Mississippi) per 100 000 women and reduced mortality from 3.3 (Utah) to 85.0 (Mississippi) per 100 000 women.
conclusionOur modeling study suggests that states and regions will differ in the extent to which they will benefit from increasing human papillomavirus vaccination coverage and cervical cancer screening 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.