↓ Skip to main content

Safety of measles-containing vaccines in post-marketing surveillance in Anhui, China

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Safety of measles-containing vaccines in post-marketing surveillance in Anhui, China
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0172108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fan-Ya Meng, Yong Sun, Yong-Gang Shen, Hai-Feng Pan, Ji-Hai Tang, Bin-Bing Wang, Chang-Hao Wu, Dong-Qing Ye

Abstract

The safety of measles vaccination is of great interest and importance to public health practice and the general society. We have analyzed the adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) of currently used measles-containing vaccines (including live attenuated measles vaccine, live attenuated measles and rubella combined vaccine, live attenuated measles and mumps combined vaccine, live attenuated Measles, Mumps and Rubella Combined Vaccine) in Anhui Province, China. From 2009 to 2014, 9.9 million doses of measles-containing vaccines were administrated and 1893 AEFIs were found (191.4 per million doses), of which, 33 serious AEFIs (3.3 per million vaccine doses) were reported. 59.4% (1124 cases) were male cases, and 85.1% (1611 cases) occurred in persons aged < 1 year. 93.3% (1766 cases) occurred at the first dose of vaccination and 95.9% (1815 cases) were found within 3 days after vaccination. This study presents up-to-date data and suggests that the measles-containing vaccines used in Anhui Province of China are safe.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Other 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 June 2022.
All research outputs
#26,309,678
of 32,893,668 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#169,691
of 218,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#349,417
of 465,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,425
of 4,743 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,893,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 465,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,743 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.