↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of vaccination against human papillomavirus in males: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 news outlets
1 blog
2 policy sources
79 X users
1 Google+ user


114 Dimensions

Readers on

260 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of vaccination against human papillomavirus in males: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1098-3
Pubmed ID

Thomas Harder, Ole Wichmann, Stefanie J. Klug, Marianne A. B. van der Sande, Miriam Wiese-Posselt


Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is safe and effective in preventing cervical cancer in females. As HPV infections can also induce cancers of the anus, penis and oral cavity, male vaccination is also advocated, but systematic reviews on efficacy and safety in males are lacking. We performed a systematic review on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of HPV vaccination in males of any age. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2017. We identified 5196 articles and seven studies (four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three non-randomized studies) were included, comprising a total of 5294 participants. Vaccine efficacy against at least 6-month persisting anogenital HPV 16 infections was 46.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 28.6-60.8%), whereas efficacy against persisting oral infections was 88% (2-98%). A vaccine efficacy of 61.9% (21.4-82.8%) and 46.8% (- 20 to -77.9%) was observed against anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and grade 3 lesions, respectively. No meaningful estimates were available on vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against penile intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, and no data were identified for anal, penile or head and neck squamous cell cancer. In participants who were HPV-seronegative and PCR-negative at enrolment, efficacy against all outcomes was higher as compared to seropositive and/or PCR-positive individuals. Risk of bias was low in three RCTs and high in one, while the three non-randomized studies were at serious to critical risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence quality was moderate to low for most outcomes. HPV vaccination in males is moderately effective against persistent anogenital HPV infection and high-grade anal intraepithelial lesions in studies where the population consists mainly of HPV-infected males. Vaccine effectiveness was high in study groups comprising HPV-naïve males. This supports a recommendation for vaccination of boys before the onset of sexual activity with the goal of establishing optimal vaccine-induced protection. Mathematical modelling studies will still be needed to assess the effects of adding males to existing HPV vaccination programs in females. Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration CRD42016038965 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 260 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 14%
Researcher 26 10%
Student > Master 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 99 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 110 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 27 March 2024.
All research outputs
of 25,914,360 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
of 4,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 342,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,914,360 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 4,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 342,394 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.