ArticleVaccines2026
Association of 9-Valent HPV Vaccination with Risk of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Sex-Stratified Real-World Study.
Article in Vaccines, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the association between 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV9) vaccination and the risk of new-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), with particular attention to sex-specific differences, including the relative lack of evidence in males and the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND
methodsUsing the TriNetX U.S. Collaborative Network (2016-2023), children aged 9-13 years who received HPV9 vaccination were compared with unvaccinated controls in prepandemic and pandemic periods. Incident JIA was assessed using matched cohort analyses and time-to-event methods.
resultsSimilar sex-specific patterns were observed across both periods. HPV9 vaccination was associated with a lower risk of JIA among girls (HR = 0.45 95% CI = 0.22-0.95 in prepandemic and HR = 0.36 95% CI = 0.17-0.74 during pandemic period), while no increased risk was observed among boys (HR = 1.57 95% CI = 0.67-4.05 in prepandemic and HR = 1.14 95% CI = 0.56-2.34 during pandemic period). Among unvaccinated individuals, girls consistently exhibited a higher incidence of JIA than boys. The COVID-19 pandemic did not alter these associations.
conclusionsHPV9 vaccination was not associated with an increased risk of JIA in either sex. A consistent sex-specific pattern was observed across both study periods, with a lower risk of JIA among vaccinated girls but not boys. This finding suggests a potential sex difference in the association between HPV9 vaccination and JIA and warrants further investigation. However, residual confounding, including healthy-vaccinee bias and differences in healthcare utilization, cannot be fully excluded.
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.