↓ Skip to main content

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 1996
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
67 tweeters
facebook
52 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
254 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 1996
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004876.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Jefferson, Carlo Di Pietrantonj, Lubna A Al-Ansary, Eliana Ferroni, Sarah Thorning, Roger E Thomas, Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Thorning S, Thomas RE, Jefferson T; Di Pietrantonj C; Al-Ansary LA; Ferroni E; Thorning S; Thomas RE, Jefferson, Tom, Di Pietrantonj, Carlo, Al-Ansary, Lubna A, Ferroni, Eliana, Thorning, Sarah, Thomas, Roger E

Abstract

Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 tweeters 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 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
United Kingdom 5 2%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 224 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 19%
Student > Master 34 13%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Other 23 9%
Other 71 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 153 60%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 12%
Unspecified 14 6%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Other 41 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 139. 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 16 November 2017.
All research outputs
#61,645
of 8,664,797 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#149
of 8,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#361
of 81,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,664,797 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 8,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. 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 81,781 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 54 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 98% of its contemporaries.