to establish and collect not only this data, but also to provide a baseline estimate to measure the wide-scale impact of the current HPV vaccine on reducing infection, as well as providing models with a baseline on cost-effectiveness of distributing said vaccine.
Were these seven colleagues qualified to do so? Indeed they were, by virtue of profession and training. As listed in the article, six out of the seven that conducted the study not only held the title of Ph.D. or M.D., but also were employed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which not only supported their work but also conducted the larger survey of which the study was a part of, the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NAHANES). All seven worked together to gather, collate, and sort the data, with Dr. Eileen F. Dunne taking the lead role, as well as responsibility for the data that supported their conclusions.
Dr. Dunne and her colleagues made no claims about the HPV virus, though they did claim that baseline data would be effective in measuring the prevalence of the disease. Their main concern was that such data did not exist, and therefore in the future there would be nothing to measure the actual reduction of the HPV virus in women against, had they been given the vaccine.
To conduct the study, Dr. Dunne and her colleagues used a “representative sample” of women aged 14-59 that were taking part in the NHANES survey. The women self-reported their race and ethnicity via questionnaires as well as providing a cervical swab. Out of 2482 females that took part in the study, 2387 were examined in a mobile examination center and asked to self-collect a sample via swab, which was then submitted for analysis. HPV detection, as well as typing, was then performed, and the results analyzed. Out of the 2387 females, 466 were considered “nonresponders”, due to the fact that they either submitted “an inadequate swab specimen”, or did not submit a specimen at all. The various types