Objective To compare the efficacy of common clinical interventions in the treatment of cervical high-risk (HR) HPV infection based on Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about common clinical interventions for cervical HR-HPV infection were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases from inception to July 31, 2021 using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was evaluated in accordance with the Cochrane systematic review manual. Meta-analysis was performed with Stata16 and RevMan5.3 software.

Results Seventy-three RCTs were included, involving 3642 patients and eight treatment methods. Network meta-analysis showed that in the three months after treatment, the negative conversion rate was in the order: PTL > anti-HPV BPD > ALA-PDT > Nr-CWS > BFKS > CSJZS > rhIFNα-2b > FUO. In the six months after treatment, the negative conversion rate was in the order: Nr-CWS > ALA-PDT > PTL > anti-HPV BPD > BFKS > rhIFNα-2b > FUO > CSJZS. In the nine months after treatment, the negative conversion rate was in the order: PTL > ALA-PDT > BFKS > anti-HPV BPD > rhIFNα-2b > FUO. IN the 12 months after treatment, the negative conversion rate was in the order: Nr-CWS > ALA-PDT > anti-HPV BPD > PTL > BFKS > rhIFNα-2b > FUO > CSJZS.

Conclusion In terms of HPV negative conversion rate, Nr-CWS and PTL are more effective and currently ideal compared with the other treatments. Owing to the quality of the evidence, the above conclusions must be confirmed by future high-quality studies.