↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vaccines for preventing plague

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1998
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 (99th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
14 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Vaccines for preventing plague
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1998
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000976
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Jefferson, Vittorio Demicheli, Mark Pratt

Abstract

Plague is endemic in China, Mongolia, Burma, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, large parts of Southern Africa, the United States and South America. There are three types of vaccines (live attenuated, killed and F1 fraction) with varying means of administration. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of vaccines to prevent plague. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and reference lists of articles. We handsearched the journal 'Vaccine' and contacted experts in the field. Randomised trials comparing live and killed plague vaccines against no intervention, placebo, other plague vaccines or vaccines against other disease (control vaccines). Three reviewers assessed the eligibility of trials. No trials were included. There is not enough evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of any plague vaccine, or the relative effectiveness between vaccines and their tolerability. Circumstantial data from observational studies suggest that killed types may be more effective and have fewer adverse effects than attenuated types of vaccine. No evidence appears to exist on the long-term effects of any plague vaccine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Other 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 22 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 24 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 15 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,002,173
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,999
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#689
of 95,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 5 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 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 95,196 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.