CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 162Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementReproductive tract infections research

Chapter 21: Modelling the impact of HPV vaccines on cervical cancer and screening programmes

Garnett, Geoffrey P., Kim, Jane J., French, Katherine, Goldie, Sue J.·2006·Vaccine
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.116
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The impact of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 vaccination on the incidence of infection and disease can be explored in a range of different models. Here we explore the epidemiological and economic impact of vaccination where screening is absent and where it is well established. The importance for epidemiology of assumptions about naturally-acquired immunity and heterogeneity in risk behaviours are highlighted, as are the importance for health economic outcomes of vaccine costs and the ability to modify screening strategies. To date, model results are consistent in predicting a useful role for vaccine, but further epidemiological data are required to help test the validity of models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.116

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The individual-based microsimulation model was chosen over the HPV 16 and 18 transmission model because the former can simulate detailed screening strategies as well as vaccination, and includes other HPV types not targeted by the vaccine, enabling calibration to many epidemiological targets.

    “This was a purposeful decision as the former can simulate detailed screening strategies as well as vaccination, and includes other HPV types not targeted by the vaccine, enabling us to take advantage of all available data by calibrating to many epidemiological targets (Garnett et al, 2006).”

    From Health and economic impact of HPV 16 and 18 vaccination and cervical cancer screening in India (2008) · cites this paper as Garnett et al, 2006

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garnett, G. P., Kim, J. J., French, K., & Goldie, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
ORCID
Kim, Jane J.
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-08
Volume
24
Pages
S178-S186
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.116
OpenAlex
W2053976574
Cited by
162
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
FWCI
18.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA093435)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
HPV vaccination, cervical cancer, cervical cancer screening, HPV-16/18 vaccine, vaccine impact, natural immunity, risk heterogeneity, vaccine cost, health economic evaluation, epidemic modeling
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Models, Theoretical, Papillomavirus Infections, Papillomavirus Vaccines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review