↓ Skip to main content

Recent advances in the development of subunit-based RSV vaccines

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Review of Vaccines, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Recent advances in the development of subunit-based RSV vaccines
Published in
Expert Review of Vaccines, October 2015
DOI 10.1586/14760584.2016.1105134
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noushin Jaberolansar, Istvan Toth, Paul R Young, Mariusz Skwarczynski

Abstract

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of lower respiratory tract infections causing pneumonia and bronchiolitis in infants. RSV also causes serious illness in elderly populations, immunocompromised patients and individuals with pulmonary or cardiac problems. The significant morbidity and mortality associated with RSV infection have prompted interest in RSV vaccine development. In the 1960s, a formalin-inactivated vaccine trial failed to protect children, and indeed enhanced pathology when naturally infected later with RSV. Hence, an alternative approach to traditional killed virus vaccines, which can induce protective immunity without serious adverse events, is desired. Several strategies have been explored in attempts to produce effective vaccine candidates including gene-based and subunit vaccines. Subunit-based vaccine approaches have shown promising efficacy in animal studies and several have reached clinical trials. The current stage of development of subunit-based vaccines against RSV is reviewed in this article.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 20 29%
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 09 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,295,501
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Vaccines
#1,369
of 1,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,663
of 284,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Vaccines
#35
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 284,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.