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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Safety of licensed vaccines in HIV-infected persons: a systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-101 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benjamin M Kagina, Charles S Wiysonge, Maia Lesosky, Shabir A Madhi, Gregory D Hussey |
| Abstract |
Safety of vaccines remains a cornerstone of building public trust on the use of these cost-effective and life-saving public health interventions. In some settings, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, there is a high prevalence of HIV infection and a high burden of vaccine-preventable diseases. There is evidence suggesting that the immunity induced by some commonly used vaccines is not durable in HIV-infected persons, and therefore, repeated vaccination may be considered to ensure optimal vaccine-induced immunity in this population. However, some vaccines, particularly the live vaccines, may be unsafe in HIV-infected persons. There is lack of evidence on the safety profile of commonly used vaccines among HIV-infected persons. We are therefore conducting a systematic review to assess the safety profile of routine vaccines administered to HIV-infected persons. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
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 26 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,728,060
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,701
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,786
of 238,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#28
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 238,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.