↓ Skip to main content

Application of the screening method to monitor influenza vaccine effectiveness among the elderly in Germany

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Application of the screening method to monitor influenza vaccine effectiveness among the elderly in Germany
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0882-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cornelius Remschmidt, Thorsten Rieck, Birte Bödeker, Ole Wichmann

Abstract

Elderly people are at increased risk for severe influenza illness and constitute therefore a major target-group for seasonal influenza vaccination in most industrialized countries. The aim of this study was to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) among individuals aged 60+ years over three seasons and to assess if the screening method is a suitable tool to monitor influenza VE in this particular target-group in Germany. We identified laboratory-confirmed influenza cases aged 60+ years through the national communicable disease reporting system for seasons 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13. Vaccination coverage (VC) data were retrieved from a database of health insurance claims representing ~85% of the total German population. We applied the screening method to calculate influenza subtype-specific VE and compared our results with VE estimates from other observational studies in Europe. In total, 7,156 laboratory-confirmed influenza cases were included. VE against all influenza types ranged between 49% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39-56) in 2011/12 and 80% (95% CI: 76-83%) in 2010/11. In 2010/11 subtype-specific VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm and B was 76% and 84%, respectively. In the following seasons, VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm, A(H3N2) and B was 87%, -9% , 74% (2011/12), and 74%, 39%, 73% (2012/13). VE was higher among hospitalized compared to non-hospitalized influenza A cases. Seventeen observational studies from Europe reporting subtype-specific VE among the elderly were identified for the respective seasons (all applying the test-negative design) and showed comparable subtype-specific VE estimates. According to our study, influenza vaccination provided moderate protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1)pdm and B in individuals aged 60+ but no or only little protection against A(H3N2). Higher VE among hospitalized cases might indicate higher protection against severe influenza disease. Based on the available data, the screening method allowed us to assess subtype-specific VE in hospitalized and non-hospitalized elderly persons. Since controlling for several important confounders was not possible, the applied method only provided crude VE estimates. However, given the precise VC-data and the large number of cases, the screening method provided results being in line with VE estimates from other observational studies in Europe that applied a different study design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Unspecified 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 January 2022.
All research outputs
#6,292,998
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,930
of 7,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,658
of 262,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#21
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 262,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.