↓ Skip to main content

Vaccines for the prevention of seasonal influenza in patients with diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Vaccines for the prevention of seasonal influenza in patients with diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0295-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cornelius Remschmidt, Ole Wichmann, Thomas Harder

Abstract

Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of severe influenza disease; influenza vaccination for these patients is therefore recommended by the World Health Organization and several National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups. However, no systematic review has evaluated the effects of influenza vaccines for patients with diabetes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until November 2014. We included all types of studies reporting on the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of influenza vaccination in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes of all ages. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess risk of bias in observational studies. Residual confounding was addressed by comparing estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) during influenza seasons to those obtained during off-seasons. Quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Following review of 1,444 articles, 11 observational studies with a total of 170,924 participants were included. In diabetic patients of working-age (18-64 years), influenza vaccination prevented all-cause hospitalization with a pooled VE of 58% (95% CI, 6-81%) and hospitalization due to influenza or pneumonia (VE 43%; 95% CI, 28-54%), whereas no effects on all-cause mortality and influenza-like illness (ILI) were observed. In the elderly (65+), influenza vaccination prevented all-cause mortality (VE 38%; 95% CI, 32-43%), all-cause hospitalization (VE 23%; 95% CI, 1-40%), hospitalization due to influenza or pneumonia (VE 45%; 95% CI, 34-53%), and ILI (VE 13%; 95% CI, 10-16%). However, significant off-season estimates for several outcomes indicated residual confounding, particularly in elderly patients. Quality of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. Laboratory-confirmed influenza infections were not reported. Due to strong residual confounding in most of the identified studies, the available evidence is insufficient to determine the magnitude of benefit that diabetic people derive from seasonal influenza vaccination. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies using laboratory-confirmed influenza-specific outcomes are urgently needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Other 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 35 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,283,732
of 25,104,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,543
of 3,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,212
of 292,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#40
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,104,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,928 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 60% 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 292,868 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.