↓ Skip to main content

Immunogenicity, reactogenicity and safety of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine candidate versus inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine: a phase III, randomized trial in adults aged ≥18 yea…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2013
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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, reactogenicity and safety of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine candidate versus inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine: a phase III, randomized trial in adults aged ≥18 years
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-13-343
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorothee Kieninger, Eric Sheldon, Wen-Yuan Lin, Chong-Jen Yu, Jose M Bayas, Julian J Gabor, Meral Esen, Jose Luis Fernandez Roure, Silvia Narejos Perez, Carmen Alvarez Sanchez, Yang Feng, Carine Claeys, Mathieu Peeters, Bruce L Innis, Varsha Jain

Abstract

Two antigenically distinct influenza B lineages have co-circulated since the 1980s, yet inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs) include strains of influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and only one influenza B from either the Victoria or Yamagata lineage. This means that exposure to B-lineage viruses mismatched to the TIV is frequent, reducing vaccine protection. Formulations including both influenza B lineages could improve protection against circulating influenza B viruses. We assessed a candidate inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) containing both B lineages versus TIV in adults in stable health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 25%
Student > Bachelor 13 18%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 4 5%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Psychology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 14 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,415,819
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#491
of 4,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,601
of 150,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,592 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 150,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.