↓ Skip to main content

Comparing influenza vaccine efficacy against mismatched and matched strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 3,933)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
74 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
29 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
327 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Comparing influenza vaccine efficacy against mismatched and matched strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea C Tricco, Ayman Chit, Charlene Soobiah, David Hallett, Genevieve Meier, Maggie H Chen, Mariam Tashkandi, Chris T Bauch, Mark Loeb

Abstract

Influenza vaccines are most effective when the antigens in the vaccine match those of circulating strains. However, antigens contained in the vaccines do not always match circulating strains. In the present work we aimed to examine the vaccine efficacy (VE) afforded by influenza vaccines when they are not well matched to circulating strains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 243 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 17%
Student > Master 34 14%
Other 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 46 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 27 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 51 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 614. 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 09 January 2024.
All research outputs
#35,882
of 25,130,202 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#48
of 3,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177
of 202,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,130,202 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 202,243 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 53 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 99% of its contemporaries.