| Title |
Usefulness of health registries when estimating vaccine effectiveness during the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic in Norway
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-12-63 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bernardo Rafael Guzmán Herrador, Preben Aavitsland, Berit Feiring, Marianne A Riise Bergsaker, Katrine Borgen |
| Abstract |
During the 2009-2010 pandemic in Norway, 12 513 laboratory-confirmed cases of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, were reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS). 2.2 million persons (45% of the population) were vaccinated with an AS03-adjuvanted monovalent vaccine during the pandemic. Most of them were registered in the Norwegian Immunisation Registry (SYSVAK). Based on these registries, we aimed at estimating the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and describing vaccine failures during the pandemic in Norway, in order to evaluate the role of the vaccine as a preventive measure during the pandemic. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 5 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 10% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
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 26 March 2012.
All research outputs
#4,874,079
of 24,496,759 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,499
of 8,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,866
of 163,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#12
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,496,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,189 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 163,735 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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.