↓ Skip to main content

Safety and immunogenicity of dry powder measles vaccine administered by inhalation: A randomized controlled Phase I clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Vaccine, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Safety and immunogenicity of dry powder measles vaccine administered by inhalation: A randomized controlled Phase I clinical trial
Published in
Vaccine, October 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.09.071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Cape, Amol Chaudhari, Vivek Vaidya, Ravindra Mulay, Shalaka Agarkhedkar, Charles Shermer, Marcus Collins, Raydel Anderson, Sharad Agarkhedkar, Prasad S Kulkarni, Scott Winston, Robert Sievers, Rajeev M Dhere, Bhagwat Gunale, Ken Powell, Paul A Rota, Mark Papania

Abstract

Measles is a highly infectious respiratory disease which causes 122,000 deaths annually. Although measles vaccine is extremely safe and effective, vaccine coverage could be improved by a vaccine that is more easily administered and transported. We developed an inhalable dry powder measles vaccine (MVDP) and two delivery devices, and demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the vaccine in preclinical studies. Here we report the first clinical trial of MVDP delivered by inhalation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 27 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 30 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#844,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Vaccine
#733
of 16,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,182
of 273,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vaccine
#5
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 273,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.