You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 90, Issue 8
  • Why are anogenital warts diagnoses decreasing in the UK: bivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine cross-protection or failure to examine?

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Why are anogenital warts diagnoses decreasing in the UK: bivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine cross-protection or failure to examine?
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 10 December 2014
    Why are anogenital warts diagnoses decreasing: Can we explain sex- and age-specific decreases?
    • David Mesher, Scientist
    • Other Contributors:
      • Gwenda Hughes and Kate Soldan

    The audit by Clarke et al of 106 patients provides a useful estimate of the percentage of anogenital warts among GUM clinic attenders that the patient had not noticed (in 2010), at 12.3%[1]. They suggest that failure to examine these patients may have accounted for a considerable proportion of the reduction in anogenital warts diagnoses in GUM seen in England between 2008 and 2012, of 8% among males and females of all age...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.