↓ Skip to main content

HPV vaccination programs have not been shown to be cost-effective in countries with comprehensive Pap screening and surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Agents and Cancer, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 500)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
92 tweeters
facebook
21 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
HPV vaccination programs have not been shown to be cost-effective in countries with comprehensive Pap screening and surgery
Published in
Infectious Agents and Cancer, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-9378-8-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judy Wilyman

Abstract

Pap screening combined with loop electrosurgical excision procedures (LEEP) is almost 100% effective in preventing cervical cancer mortality yet many countries with these procedures have now implemented broad HPV vaccination programs. HPV vaccines have not been demonstrated to be more effective or safer than Pap screening in the prevention of cervical cancer and Pap screening will still be required even in vaccinated women. The HPV vaccine costs Au$450 per person and it does not protect against ~30% of cancer. This investigation analyses the cost-effectiveness of using the HPV vaccine in countries where Pap screening and surgical procedures have already reduced cervical cancer mortality to very low rates. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs is being determined by mathematical models which are founded on many assumptions. It is necessary to examine the rigor of these assumptions to be certain of the health benefits that are predicted. In 2002 scientists concluded that HPV 16 and 18 were the central and independent cause of most cervical cancer. This conclusion was based on molecular technology. If HPV 16 and 18 infections are the central and independent cause of most cervical cancer then the incidence of HPV 16 and 18 should vary with the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer worldwide. This correlation does not exist. It is also observed that the majority of HPV 16/18 infections do not lead to cervical cancer. This indicates that other etiological or 'risk' factors are necessary for persistent HPV infection to progress to cancer. The benefits of HPV vaccines have been determined by using pre-cancerous lesions in young women as a surrogate for cervical cancer. This surrogate is found to be inadequate as an end-point for cervical cancer. Clinical trials have only provided speculative benefits for the efficacy of HPV vaccines against cancer and the long-term risks of the vaccine have not been established. Pap screening will still be required in vaccinated women hence HPV vaccination programs are not cost-effective, and may do more harm than good, in countries where regular Pap screening and surgery has already reduced the burden of this disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 92 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Mauritius 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 71 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 24%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 14 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2022.
All research outputs
#477,675
of 22,150,339 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Agents and Cancer
#8
of 500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,473
of 175,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Agents and Cancer
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,150,339 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 175,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them