↓ Skip to main content

Immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (M-M-RvaxPro®) and a varicella vaccine (VARIVAX®) by intramuscular or subcutaneous routes at separate…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (M-M-RvaxPro®) and a varicella vaccine (VARIVAX®) by intramuscular or subcutaneous routes at separate injection sites: a randomised clinical trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2009
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-7-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yves Gillet, Pirmin Habermehl, Stéphane Thomas, Cécile Eymin, Anne Fiquet

Abstract

When this trial was initiated, the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine was licensed for subcutaneous administration in all European countries and for intramuscular administration in some countries, whereas varicella vaccine was licensed only for subcutaneous administration. This study evaluated the intramuscular administration of an MMR vaccine (M-M-RvaxPro) and a varicella vaccine (VARIVAX) compared with the subcutaneous route.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Other 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,877,502
of 25,149,126 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,325
of 3,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,458
of 103,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,149,126 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 103,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.