↓ Skip to main content

Vaccinations and childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, November 2015
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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
54 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Vaccinations and childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Published in
Diabetologia, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00125-015-3800-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eileen Morgan, Sophia R. Halliday, Gemma R. Campbell, Chris R. Cardwell, Chris C. Patterson

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between routine vaccinations and the risk of childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus by systematically reviewing the published literature and performing meta-analyses where possible. A comprehensive literature search was performed of MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all studies that compared vaccination rates in children who subsequently developed type 1 diabetes mellitus and in control children. ORs and 95% CIs were obtained from published reports or derived from individual patient data and then combined using a random effects meta-analysis. In total, 23 studies investigating 16 vaccinations met the inclusion criteria. Eleven of these contributed to meta-analyses which included data from between 359 and 11,828 childhood diabetes cases. Overall, there was no evidence to suggest an association between any of the childhood vaccinations investigated and type 1 diabetes mellitus. The pooled ORs ranged from 0.58 (95% CI 0.24, 1.40) for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination in five studies up to 1.04 (95% CI 0.94, 1.14) for the haemophilus influenza B (HiB) vaccination in 11 studies. Significant heterogeneity was present in most of the pooled analyses, but was markedly reduced when analyses were restricted to study reports with high methodology quality scores. Neither this restriction by quality nor the original authors' adjustments for potential confounding made a substantial difference to the pooled ORs. This study provides no evidence of an association between routine vaccinations and childhood type 1 diabetes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 127 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 10 8%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 39 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 40 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 20 July 2023.
All research outputs
#744,819
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#384
of 5,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,924
of 294,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#8
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 294,049 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 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.