Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Proof-of-Principle Evaluation of the Efficacy of Fewer Than Three Doses of a Bivalent HPV16/18 Vaccine

Open access
Kreimer, Aimée R., Rodriguez, Ana Cecilia, Hildesheim, Allan, Herrero, Rolando, Porras, Carolina, Schiffman, Mark, González, Paula, Solomon, Diane, Jiménez, Silvia, Schiller, John T., Lowy, Douglas R., Quint, Wim, Sherman, Mark E., Schussler, John, Wacholder, Sholom, for the CVT Vaccine Group·2011·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Three-dose regimens for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are expensive and difficult to complete, especially in settings where the need for cervical cancer prevention is greatest. METHODS: We evaluated the vaccine efficacy of fewer than three doses of the HPV16/18 vaccine Cervarix in our Costa Rica Vaccine Trial. Women were randomly assigned to receive three doses of the HPV16/18 vaccine or to a control vaccine and were followed for incident HPV16 or HPV18 infection that persisted in visits that were 10 or more months apart (median follow-up 4.2 years). After excluding women who had no follow-up or who were HPV16 and HPV18 DNA positive at enrollment, 5967 women received three vaccine doses (2957 HPV vaccine vs 3010 control vaccine), 802 received two doses (422 HPV vs. 380 control), and 384 received one dose (196 HPV vs. 188 control). Reasons for receiving fewer doses and other pre- and post-randomization characteristics were balanced within each dosage group between women receiving the HPV and control vaccines. RESULTS: Incident HPV16 or HPV18 infections that persisted for 1 year were unrelated to dosage of the control vaccine. Vaccine efficacy was 80.9% for three doses of the HPV vaccine (95% confidence interval [CI] = 71.1% to 87.7%; 25 and 133 events in the HPV and control arms, respectively), 84.1% for two doses (95% CI = 50.2% to 96.3%; 3 and 17 events), and 100% for one dose (95% CI = 66.5% to 100%; 0 and 10 events). CONCLUSION: Four years after vaccination of women who appeared to be uninfected, this nonrandomized analysis suggests that two doses of the HPV16/18 vaccine, and maybe even one dose, are as protective as three doses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djr319

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Kreimer, A. R., Rodriguez, A. C., Hildesheim, A., Herrero, R., Porras, C., Schiffman, M., González, P., Solomon, D., Jiménez, S., Schiller, J. T., Lowy, D. R., Quint, W., Sherman, M. E., Schussler, J., Wacholder, S., & for the CVT Vaccine Group
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2011-09-09
Volume
103
Issue
19
Pages
1444-1451
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2102245223
Cited by
324
References
2
FWCI
29.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proof-of-Principle Evaluation of the Efficacy of Fewer Than Three Doses of a Bivalent HPV16/18 Vaccine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djr319
The paper
Kreimer, A. R., Rodriguez, A. C., Hildesheim, A., Herrero, R., Porras, C., Schiffman, M., González, P., Solomon, D., Jiménez, S., Schiller, J. T., Lowy, D. R., Quint, W., Sherman, M. E., Schussler, J., Wacholder, S., & for the CVT Vaccine Group. (2011). Proof-of-Principle Evaluation of the Efficacy of Fewer Than Three Doses of a Bivalent HPV16/18 Vaccine. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr319

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.