↓ Skip to main content

Pneumococcal vaccines for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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.
Title
Pneumococcal vaccines for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008865.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Burgess, Kevin W Southern

Abstract

Invasive pneumococcal disease is associated with significant mortality and many countries have introduced routine pneumococcal vaccination into their childhood immunisation programmes. Whilst pneumococcal disease in cystic fibrosis is uncommon, pneumococcal immunisation may offer some protection against pulmonary exacerbations caused by this pathogen. In the USA and UK pneumococcal vaccination is currently recommended for all children and adults with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccines in reducing morbidity in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. In addition, the pharmaceutical manufacturers of the polysaccharide and conjugate pneumococcal vaccines were approached.Date of the most recent search: 27 June 2016. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pneumococcal vaccination (with either a polysaccharide or conjugate pneumococcal vaccine) with non-vaccination or placebo in children or adults with cystic fibrosis were eligible for inclusion. No relevant trials were identified. There are no trials included in this review. As no trials were identified we cannot draw conclusions on the efficacy of routine pneumococcal immunisation in people with cystic fibrosis in reducing their morbidity or mortality. As many countries now include pneumococcal immunisation in their routine childhood vaccination schedule it is unlikely that future randomised controlled trials will be initiated. Rigorously conducted epidemiological studies may offer the opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in reducing morbidity and mortality in people with cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 18%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,070,217
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,678
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,260
of 264,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 264,226 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.