↓ Skip to main content

Parental Tdap Boosters and Infant Pertussis: A Case-Control Study

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatrics, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
21 X users
facebook
16 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Parental Tdap Boosters and Infant Pertussis: A Case-Control Study
Published in
Pediatrics, October 2014
DOI 10.1542/peds.2014-1105
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen E Quinn, Thomas L Snelling, Andrew Habig, Clayton Chiu, Paula J Spokes, Peter B McIntyre

Abstract

Although recommended for almost a decade, evidence for field effectiveness of vaccinating close adult contacts of newborn infants against pertussis ("cocooning") is lacking. We evaluated the impact of a government-funded cocoon program during a pertussis epidemic in New South Wales, Australia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 90 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 23 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#915,322
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from Pediatrics
#3,005
of 18,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,796
of 259,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatrics
#49
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 259,563 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.