↓ Skip to main content

Seronegativity to polio viruses among previously immunized adult candidates to solid organ transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Seronegativity to polio viruses among previously immunized adult candidates to solid organ transplantation
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.bjid.2018.02.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciana Gomes Pedro Brandão, Pedro Emmanuel Alvarenga Americano do Brasil, Silas de Oliveira Silva, Edson Elias da Silva, Guilherme Santoro Lopes

Abstract

In the current effort to eliminate polio from the world, it is important to recognize and vaccinate susceptible groups, especially immunocompromised patients living in countries where attenuated polio vaccine is still used. In this report, we describe the frequency of protective antibodies in a small sample of adult SOT candidates in whom previous vaccination could be ascertained. Patients included in this report were selected among the participants of an ongoing prospective study carried out at the Reference Center for Special Immunobiologicals of the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Among the first 100 patients enrolled in this study, only seven adult SOT candidates had proven polio vaccination at childhood. Three of these seven patients (43%) had no protective antibody titers to one or more poliovirus subtype before solid organ transplant. Proven childhood vaccination against polio does not reliably provide lifelong protective antibody titers for adult SOT candidates and should not be used as a criterion to analyze the need for vaccination in this population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Student > Master 2 14%
Other 2 14%
Professor 1 7%
Unknown 6 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%

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 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#11,224,737
of 14,158,567 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
#231
of 400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,151
of 275,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,158,567 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 400 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 275,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.