| Title |
Aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines versus placebo or no intervention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012805 |
| Authors |
Snezana Djurisic, Janus C Jakobsen, Sesilje B Petersen, Mette Kenfelt, Christian Gluud |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 204 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 26 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 6% |
| Japan | 11 | 5% |
| Denmark | 5 | 2% |
| Canada | 5 | 2% |
| Colombia | 4 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 3 | 1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| India | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 129 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 182 | 89% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 6% |
| Scientists | 6 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 100 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 137. 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 22 April 2024.
All research outputs
#309,221
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#520
of 13,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,365
of 329,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 329,314 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 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 95% of its contemporaries.