↓ Skip to main content

Influenza vaccine for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users
facebook
26 Facebook pages
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
285 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Influenza vaccine for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002733.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillippa Poole, Emme E Chacko, Richard Wood‐Baker, Christopher J Cates

Abstract

Influenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported. Influenza infection causes excess morbidity and mortality in COPD patients but there is also the potential for influenza vaccination to cause adverse effects or not to be cost effective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Unknown 280 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 13%
Researcher 35 12%
Student > Postgraduate 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 9%
Other 65 22%
Unknown 65 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 140 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 25 9%
Unknown 77 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,615,362
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,463
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,166
of 171,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 171,041 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 91% of its contemporaries.