MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804687598 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.01.057

Human papillomavirus vaccine effectiveness by number of doses: Systematic review of data from national immunization programs

2018· review· en· W2804687598 on OpenAlexaff
Lauri E. Markowitz, Mélanie Drolet, Norma Pérez, Mark Jit, Marc Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationContext (archaeology)Human papillomavirusImmunizationImmunologyInternal medicineBiologyAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series; a two-dose series is now recommended in some age groups and there is interest in possible one-dose vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of HPV vaccine effectiveness by number of doses, including assessment of biases and impact of varying buffer periods (time between vaccination and outcome counting). RESULTS: Of 3787 articles identified, 26 full articles were assessed and 14 included in our review. All studies were conducted within the context of recommended three-dose schedules of bivalent (3) or quadrivalent HPV vaccine (11). Two evaluated effectiveness for prevention of HPV prevalence, six anogenital warts, and six abnormal cervical cytology or histology. Many studies found differences between three-, two- and one-dose vaccine recipients, indicating possible differences in HPV exposure prior to vaccination or in risk behavior. Adjusted or stratified analyses were conducted to control for potential confounding. All studies found significant vaccine effectiveness with three doses, 11 with two doses at various intervals, and six with one dose. Most studies showed a relationship (not always statistically significant) between effectiveness and number of doses, with greater decreases in HPV-related outcomes with three, followed by two and one dose(s). Few studies conducted formal comparisons of three vs fewer doses. Three of four studies that examined buffer periods found higher effectiveness and a smaller difference by number of doses with longer periods. CONCLUSION: Most post-licensure studies report highest effectiveness with three doses; some found no statistically significant difference between two and three doses. Additionally, almost half found some effectiveness with one dose. Several biases impact estimates, with most biasing two- and one-dose results away from showing effectiveness. Future effectiveness studies, examining persons vaccinated prior to sexual activity and using methods to reduce potential sources of bias, can help inform vaccination policy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207