↓ Skip to main content

An Assessment of the Screening Method to Evaluate Vaccine Effectiveness: The Case of 7-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2012
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
An Assessment of the Screening Method to Evaluate Vaccine Effectiveness: The Case of 7-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in the United States
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0041785
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam L. Cohen, Thomas Taylor, Monica M. Farley, William Schaffner, Lindsey J. Lesher, Kenneth A. Gershman, Nancy M. Bennett, Arthur Reingold, Ann Thomas, Joan Baumbach, Lee H. Harrison, Susan Petit, Bernard Beall, Elizabeth Zell, Matthew Moore

Abstract

The screening method, which employs readily available data, is an inexpensive and quick means of estimating vaccine effectiveness (VE). We compared estimates of effectiveness of heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) against invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) using the screening and case-control methods. Cases were children aged 19-35 months with pneumococcus isolated from normally sterile sites residing in Active Bacterial Core surveillance areas in the United States. Case-control VE was estimated for 2001-2004 by comparing the odds of vaccination among cases and community controls. Screening-method VE for 2001-2009 was estimated by comparing the proportion of cases vaccinated to National Immunization Survey-derived coverage among the general population. To evaluate the plausibility of screening-method VE findings, we estimated attack rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. We identified 1,154 children with IPD. Annual population PCV7 coverage with ≥1 dose increased from 38% to 97%. Case-control VE for ≥1 dose was estimated as 75% against all-serotype IPD (annual range: 35-83%) and 91% for PCV7-type IPD (annual range: 65-100%). By the screening method, the overall VE was 86% for ≥1 dose (annual range: -240-70%) against all-serotype IPD and 94% (annual range: 62-97%) against PCV7-type IPD. As cases of PCV7-type IPD declined during 2001-2005, estimated attack rates for all-serotype IPD among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals became less consistent than what would be expected with the estimated effectiveness of PCV7. The screening method yields estimates of VE that are highly dependent on the time period during which it is used and the choice of outcome. The method should be used cautiously to evaluate VE of PCVs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Student > Master 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,636,302
of 25,448,590 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#47,543
of 221,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,175
of 179,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#734
of 4,102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,448,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 221,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 179,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.