SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “genital warts”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Population-level impact of HPV vaccination: a global systematic review of ecological, cross-sectional, and cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes approximately 4.5% of cancers globally, with the highest burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Since their introduction in 2006, HPV vaccination programs have led to substantial declines in HPV-related outcomes, although impact varies across settings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the population-level impact of HPV vaccination on HPV infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+), genital warts, invasive cervical cancer (ICC), and oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and examined the influence of coverage, age at initiation, and vaccine type. The review followed PRISMA 2020. RESULTS: Of 13,549 records screened, 63 were included: 9 assessed HPV infection, 24 on CIN2+, 25 on genital warts, and 7 on ICC. Greatest reductions were observed in settings with at least 70% coverage and early vaccination prior to sexual debut, typically achieved through school-based programs. Reported declines ranged from 58-100% for HPV infection, 30-88% for CIN2+, 60-90% for genital warts, and 70-88% for ICC. CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccination offers strong protection, especially when delivered early and at high coverage within schools. Expanding access and prioritizing underserved populations are essential to achieving global cancer prevention goals. Limitations include heterogeneity across designs, outcome definitions, and follow-up.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Immunogenicity and safety of prophylactic HPV vaccines in people living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a major global public health concern, causing genital warts and cancers of the cervix, anus, oropharynx, vulva, and penis. People living with HIV (PLWH) face a disproportionately elevated burden of HPV infection and HPV-related malignancies due to chronic immunosuppression. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching six databases from January 2006 to June 2026 without language restrictions. Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review; 12 independent studies (N = 1,493 for HPV16) were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with logit transformation, pooled seroconversion rates were: HPV16 97.8% (95% CI: 94.9-99.1%; I2 = 89.6%; 15 datasets), HPV18 94.2% (95% CI: 86.1-97.7%; I2 = 95.8%; 13 datasets), HPV6 97.0% (95% CI: 93.7-98.6%; I2 = 66.1%; 10 studies), and HPV11 97.1% (95% CI: 90.5-99.1%; I2 = 95.5%; 10 studies). CD4 count was the most consistently reported modifier of immunogenic response: HPV16 seroconversion was 98.5% in PLWH with CD4 > 350 cells/μL vs. 71.1% in those with CD4 ≤ 200 cells/μL (ACTG A5240). All three vaccine generations demonstrated high immunogenicity. Two doses of the nonavalent vaccine were non-inferior to three doses in virologically suppressed women (Papillon RCT). No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for HPV16, HPV6, and HPV11, and low for HPV18. Prophylactic HPV vaccination achieves high seroconversion rates across all vaccine generations in PLWH. CD4 count significantly modifies vaccine response, underscoring the importance of vaccination before severe immunosuppression develops. These findings support current international recommendations advocating HPV vaccination for all PLWH.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Female genital mutilation knowledge, attitudes and training needs among health professionals in non-practicing countries: A literature review.

BACKGROUND: With increasing globalization and migration, the number of women affected by female genital mutilation who reside in countries where the practice is not traditionally performed is constantly increasing. Healthcare providers in these settings are required to address the complex health needs of this vulnerable population. We aimed to synthesize recent literature on their knowledge, preparedness, and educational background. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review across PubMed, Scopus and Embase, identifying papers published from January 2015 onwards, examining providers' knowledge, education and attitudes toward female genital mutilation in non-practicing countries. Both quantitative and qualitative observational studies were eligible. Given heterogeneity in study populations, outcome definitions, and assessment tools, findings were synthesized narratively. The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251044761). FINDINGS: 1046 records were screened by title and abstract, and 140 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 31 studies met the inclusion criteria (23 quantitative, 8 qualitative). Many providers reported clinical experience with women affected by female genital mutilation, yet substantial variability was observed in knowledge, training, and attitudes. Gaps were particularly evident regarding legislation, World Health Organization classification, clinical guidelines, referral pathways, workplace protocols. Midwives and younger professionals tended to demonstrate higher knowledge levels. Training exposure ranged from 5% to 91%, and many participants perceived it as insufficient. Qualitative findings echoed these patterns, highlighting challenges in female genital mutilation classification, legal awareness, documentation systems, the impact of providers' cultural beliefs on care delivery. CONCLUSION: Considerable efforts are needed to equip healthcare providers to deliver high-quality, culturally competent care to women affected by female genital mutilation. Research should develop validated tools to assess preparedness, adopt mixed-methods strategies to capture patient and provider perspectives, and guide standardized, up-to-date training programs, strengthening knowledge in managing female genital mutilation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Oliceridine used for patient-controlled analgesia on postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological tumour resection: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Oliceridine, a novel biased μ-opioid receptor agonist, is widely used perioperatively, yet limited data exists regarding its impact on postoperative quality of recovery. This study investigated the effect of oliceridine-based patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) on postoperative quality of recovery among patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological tumour resection. METHODS: Ninety‑four female patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic gynecological tumour resection were included. Patients were randomized to two groups: oliceridine group (loading dose 1.5 mg, PCIA 0.55 mg/kg) or sufentanil group (loading dose 10 μg, PCIA 3 μg/kg). The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) score on postoperative day 1. The secondary outcomes included the QoR-40 score, the numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) score, the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness and Loss of weight (FRAIL) index and adverse events within 3 postoperative days. RESULTS: Higher QoR-40 scores were found in the oliceridine group on postoperative day 1 (182.9 ± 3.1 versus 177.5 ± 3.9, p < 0.001). Compared with the sufentanil group, the oliceridine group showed better QoR-40 scores within 3 days after operation. No significant differences were observed in NRS pain scores or HADS-A scores between the two groups (all p > 0.05). However, the median FRAIL score in the oliceridine group was lower on postoperative day 2 (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Oliceridine used in PCIA improves early postoperative recovery quality of patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological tumour resection. It provides analgesic effect comparable to sufentanil and lowers incidences of postoperative frailty, nausea and vomiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2400094271.

Humans↗