↓ Skip to main content

Immunogenicity and safety of intradermal influenza vaccine in immunocompromized patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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 intradermal influenza vaccine in immunocompromized patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1161-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Pileggi, Francesca Lotito, Aida Bianco, Carmelo G. A. Nobile, Maria Pavia

Abstract

The primary influenza prevention strategy is focused on annual vaccination according to the categories identified in the various countries as being at greatest risk of complications. Many studies were conducted in order to demonstrate that intradermal (ID) vaccine formulation represents a promising alternative to conventional intramuscular (IM) formulation, especially in subjects with an impaired immune system. However, there is no consensus whether the efficacy and safety of ID is equivalent to IM in these subjects. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) to compare the immunogenicity and safety of ID and IM influenza vaccines in subjects with a depleted immune system. We conducted a search strategy of medical literature published until November 2014 in order to identify RCTs that evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of ID compared with IM influenza vaccines in immunocompromized patients. We identified a total of 269 citations through research in electronic databases and scanning reference lists. Of these, 6 articles were included in the meta-analysis, for a total of 673 subjects. The seroprotection rate induced by the ID vaccine is comparable to that elicited by the IM vaccine. The overall RR was 1.00 (95 % CI = 0.91 -1.10) for A/H1N1 strain, 1.00 (95 % CI = 0.90-1.12) for A/H3N2 and 0.99 (95 % CI = 0.84 -1.16) for B strain. No significant differences in the occurrence of systemic reactions were detected (17.7 % in the ID group vs 18.2 % in the IM group) with a pooled RR = 1.00 (95 % CI = 0.67 -1.51), whereas ID administration caused significantly more injection site reactions with a mean frequency of 46 % in the ID group compared to 22 % in the IM group, with a pooled RR = 1.89 (95 % CI = 1.40 -2.57). The ID influenza vaccine has shown a similar immunogenicity and safety to the IM influenza vaccine in immunocompromized patients, and it may be a valid option to increase compliance to influenza vaccination in these populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 27%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Psychology 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 5 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,934,042
of 6,241,002 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,645
of 3,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,298
of 194,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#87
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,241,002 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,015 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 194,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.