↓ Skip to main content

Guillain-Barré syndrome following the 2009 pandemic monovalent and seasonal trivalent influenza vaccination campaigns in Spain from 2009 to 2011: outcomes from active surveillance by a neurologist…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, May 2016
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Guillain-Barré syndrome following the 2009 pandemic monovalent and seasonal trivalent influenza vaccination campaigns in Spain from 2009 to 2011: outcomes from active surveillance by a neurologist network, and records from a country-wide hospital discharge database
Published in
BMC Neurology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12883-016-0598-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enrique Alcalde-Cabero, Javier Almazán-Isla, Fernando J. García López, José Ramón Ara-Callizo, Fuencisla Avellanal, Carlos Casasnovas, Carlos Cemillán, José Ignacio Cuadrado, Jacinto Duarte, María Dolores Fernández-Pérez, Óscar Fernández, Juan Antonio García Merino, Rosa García Montero, Dolores Montero, Julio Pardo, Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Rivera, María Ruiz-Tovar, Jesús de Pedro-Cuesta, Spanish GBS Epidemiology Study Group

Abstract

Studies have shown a slight excess risk in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) incidence associated with A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination campaign and seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine immunisations in 2009-2010. We aimed to assess the incidence of GBS as a potential adverse effect of A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination. A neurologist-led network, active at the neurology departments of ten general hospitals serving an adult population of 4.68 million, conducted GBS surveillance in Spain in 2009-2011. The network, established in 1996, carried out a retrospective and a prospective study to estimate monthly alarm thresholds in GBS incidence and tested them in 1998-1999 in a pilot study. Such incidence thresholds additionally to observation of GBS cases with immunisation antecedent in the 42 days prior to clinical onset were taken as alarm signals for 2009-2011, since November 2009 onwards. For purpose of surveillance, in 2009 we updated both the available centres and the populations served by the network. We also did a retrospective countrywide review of hospital-discharged patients having ICD-9-CM code 357.0 (acute infective polyneuritis) as their principal diagnosis from January 2009 to December 2011. Among 141 confirmed of 148 notified cases of GBS or Miller-Fisher syndrome, Brighton 1-2 criteria in 96 %, not a single patient was identified with clinical onset during the 42-day time interval following A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination. In contrast, seven cases were seen during a similar period after seasonal campaigns. Monthly incidence figures did not, however, exceed the upper 95 % CI limit of expected incidence. A retrospective countrywide review of the registry of hospital-discharged patients having ICD-9-CM code 357.0 (acute infective polyneuritis) as their principal diagnosis did not suggest higher admission rates in critical months across the period December 2009-February 2010. Despite limited power and underlying reporting bias in 2010-2011, an increase in GBS incidence over background GBS, associated with A(H1N1)pdm09 monovalent or trivalent influenza immunisations, appears unlikely.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 22%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,264,928
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,222
of 2,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,221
of 333,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#25
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 333,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.