↓ Skip to main content

Serological makers of rubella infection in Africa in the pre vaccination era: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 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 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Serological makers of rubella infection in Africa in the pre vaccination era: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1711-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariam M. Mirambo, Mtebe Majigo, Said Aboud, Uwe Groß, Stephen E. Mshana

Abstract

Rubella infections in susceptible women during early pregnancy often results in congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that countries without vaccination programmes to assess the burden of rubella infection and CRS. However; in many African countries there is limited data on epidemiology of rubella infection and CRS. This review was undertaken to assess the serological markers and genotypes of rubella virus on the African continent in order to ascertain the gap for future research. A systematic search of original literatures from different electronic databases using search terms such as 'rubella' plus individual African countries such as 'Tanzania', 'Kenya', 'Nigeria' etc. and different populations such as 'children', 'pregnant women' etc. in different combinations was performed. Articles from countries with rubella vaccination programmes, outbreak data and case reports were excluded. Data were entered in a Microsoft Excel sheet and analyzed. A total of 44 articles from 17 African countries published between 2002 and 2014 were retrieved; of which 36 were eligible and included in this review. Of all population tested, the natural immunity of rubella was found to range from 52.9 to 97.9 %. In these countries, the prevalence of susceptible pregnant women ranged from 2.1 to 47.1 %. Rubella natural immunity was significantly higher among pregnant women than in general population (P < 0.001). Acute rubella infection was observed to be as low as 0.3 % among pregnant women to 45.1 % among children. All studies did not ascertain the age-specific prevalence, thus it was difficult to calculate the rate of infection with increase in age. Only two articles were found to report on rubella genotypes. Of 15 strains genotyped; three rubella virus genotypes were found to circulate in four African countries. Despite variations in serological assays, the seroprevalence of IgG rubella antibodies in Africa is high with a substantial number of women of childbearing age being susceptible to rubella infection. Standardized sero-epidemiological data in various age groups as well as CRS data are important to implement cost-effective vaccination campaigns and control strategies.

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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 26%
Student > Postgraduate 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,350,522
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,314
of 4,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,601
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#87
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.