MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes on community rates of HPV-related disease and harms from vaccination

2025· article· en· W4416660180 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Henschke, Hanna Bergman, Brian S Buckley, Emma J. Crosbie, Kerry Dwan, Su Golder, Maria Kyrgiou, Yoon K. Loke, Heather M McIntosh, Katrin Probyn, Gemma Villanueva, Jo Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationCervical cancerHuman papillomavirusDiseaseAdverse effectHPV vaccinesMeta-analysisHuman papillomavirus vaccine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has the potential to enhance prevention of cervical cancer, especially in countries where screening programmes are currently unaffordable or impractical. Rare adverse events and longer-term benefits of HPV vaccination, such as effects on cancer rates, are difficult to examine in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and require large data from population-level studies to inform decision-making. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess population-level effects of HPV vaccination programmes on HPV-related disease and harms from vaccination. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches on 11 September 2024 in CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase. We also searched vaccine manufacturer websites and checked reference lists from an index of HPV studies and other relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that assessed the impact of HPV vaccination on the general population. This included population-level studies comparing outcomes before and after the introduction of HPV vaccine. We also included individual-level, non-randomised comparative studies, such as cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and self-controlled case series. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used methods recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors carried out data extraction independently using pretested data extraction forms. We assessed the risk of bias of all included effect estimates using different tools according to study design. We carried out quantitative and qualitative data synthesis separately by outcome and study design. We performed meta-analysis on studies that reported effect estimates adjusted for confounding, with a focus on those receiving HPV vaccination at or before the age of 16 years (the target age group for vaccination). We rated the certainty of the evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: = 99%). Twenty-three pre-post vaccine introduction studies reported a decrease in anogenital warts incidence following the introduction of HPV vaccine. Six studies reported no difference in anogenital warts incidence. There was only very low-certainty evidence on the effect of HPV vaccination on the incidence of adenocarcinoma in situ (three studies) and vulval cancer (five studies). No studies were identified that reported on community rates of serious adverse events following HPV vaccination. Specific adverse events Across a range of study designs, HPV vaccination was not associated with an increased risk of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis, paralysis, complex regional pain syndrome, premature ovarian failure, infertility or sexual activity (all moderate-certainty evidence). There was evidence that suggests HPV vaccination was not associated with an increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are now long-term outcome data from different countries and from different study designs that consistently report a reduction in the development of high-grade CIN and cervical cancer in females vaccinated against HPV in early adolescence. Data show that there is greater benefit to vaccinating younger adolescents prior to becoming sexually active. There is evidence that HPV vaccination does not increase the risk of the most common adverse events reported on social media.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.025
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207