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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
RETRACTED ARTICLE:The impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0919-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lauren C. Ramsay, Sarah A. Buchan, Robert G. Stirling, Benjamin J. Cowling, Shuo Feng, Jeffrey C. Kwong, Bryna F. Warshawsky |
| Abstract |
Conflicting results regarding the impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may cause confusion regarding the benefits of receiving the current season's vaccine. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from database inception to August 17, 2016, for observational studies published in English that reported VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza for four vaccination groups, namely current season only, prior season only, both seasons, and neither season. We pooled differences in VE (∆VE) between vaccination groups by influenza season and type/subtype using a random effects model. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016037241). We identified 3435 unique articles, reviewed the full text of 634, and included 20 for meta-analysis. Compared to prior season vaccination only, vaccination in both seasons was associated with greater protection against influenza H1N1 (∆VE = 26%; 95% CI, 15% to 36%) and B (∆VE = 24%; 95% CI, 7% to 42%), but not H3N2 (∆VE = 10%; 95% CI, -6% to 25%). Compared to no vaccination for either season, individuals who received the current season's vaccine had greater protection against H1N1 (∆VE = 61%; 95% CI, 50% to 70%), H3N2 (∆VE = 41%; 95% CI, 33% to 48%), and B (∆VE = 62%; 95% CI, 54% to 68%). We observed no differences in VE between vaccination in both seasons and the current season only for H1N1 (∆VE = 4%; 95% CI, -7% to 15%), H3N2 (∆VE = -12%; 95% CI, -27% to 4%), or B (∆VE = -8%; 95% CI, -17% to 1%). From the patient perspective, our results support current season vaccination regardless of prior season vaccination. We found no overall evidence that prior season vaccination negatively impacts current season VE. It is important that future VE studies include vaccination history over multiple seasons in order to evaluate repeated vaccination in more detail. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 14 | 27% |
| Spain | 10 | 20% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| India | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 24% |
| Scientists | 4 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 24 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#696,761
of 24,280,456 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#490
of 3,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,060
of 321,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#11
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,280,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 321,189 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.