| Title |
The safety and efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine in young children with asthma or prior wheezing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-012-1595-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. S. Ambrose, F. Dubovsky, T. Yi, R. B. Belshe, S. Ashkenazi |
| Abstract |
In the European Union and Canada, an Ann Arbor strain live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is approved for use in children aged 2-17 years, including those with mild to moderate asthma or prior wheezing. The safety and efficacy of LAIV versus trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in children with asthma aged 6-17 years have been demonstrated. However, few data are available for children younger than 6 years of age with asthma or prior wheezing. Safety and efficacy data were collected for children aged 2-5 years with asthma or prior wheezing from two randomized, multinational trials of LAIV and TIV (N = 1,940). Wheezing, lower respiratory illness, and hospitalization were not significantly increased among children receiving LAIV compared with TIV. Increased upper respiratory symptoms and irritability were observed among LAIV recipients (p < 0.05). Relative efficacies were consistent with the results observed in the overall study populations, which demonstrated fewer cases of culture-confirmed influenza illness in LAIV compared with TIV recipients. Study results support the safety and efficacy of LAIV among children aged 2-17 years with mild to moderate asthma or a history of wheezing. Data regarding LAIV use are limited among individuals with severe asthma or active wheezing within the 7 days before vaccination. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 20% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 June 2019.
All research outputs
#5,006,973
of 24,203,404 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#449
of 2,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,532
of 159,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,203,404 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,883 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 159,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 94% of its contemporaries.