↓ Skip to main content

Impact ofHaemophilus influenzaetype B (Hib) and viral influenza vaccinations in pregnancy for improving maternal, neonatal and infant health outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
Impact ofHaemophilus influenzaetype B (Hib) and viral influenza vaccinations in pregnancy for improving maternal, neonatal and infant health outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009982.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rehana A Salam, Jai K Das, Chesarahmia Dojo Soeandy, Zohra S Lassi, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Abstract

Infections during pregnancy confers increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. However, the case for advocating Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) and viral Influenza vaccinations in pregnancy is still debatable. To assess the impact of Hib and viral Influenza vaccinations during pregnancy on maternal, neonatal and infant health outcomes compared to placebo/control. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (29 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All randomised controlled clinical trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and quasi-randomised trials evaluating Hib or viral influenza vaccination during pregnancy compared with no vaccination or placebo. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Two trials were included this review. One (involving 213 women and 213 neonates) evaluated the impact of Hib vaccination during pregnancy and the other study (involving 2116 women and 2049 neonates) evaluated the impact of viral influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Overall, the HiB vaccination trial was judged to be at 'high risk of bias' due to inadequate randomisation while the other trial was judged to be at 'low risk of bias'. Hib vaccination during pregnancy versus placeboOne trial involving 213 women and 213 neonates evaluating the impact of Hib vaccination during pregnancy was included under this comparison. The study did not report on any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes (including mortality, respiratory tract infection and sepsis) or secondary outcomes (including adverse events) except preterm delivery. There was no clear difference between the Hib vaccination and placebo control groups in terms of preterm delivery (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 13.86, one study, 213 participants), fetal distress (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.26, one study, 213 infants), intubation (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.95, one study, 213 infants) and neonatal jaundice (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.97, one study, 213 infants). We could not grade the evidence for quality due to lack of outcome data. Viral influenza vaccination during pregnancy versus placeboOne trial involving 2116 women and 2049 infants evaluating the impact of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) during pregnancy was included under this comparison.There was no clear difference between the viral influenza and placebo control group in terms of most of this review's primary outcomes: maternal death (RR 4.96, 95% CI 0.24 to 103.24, moderate quality evidence), infant death up to 175 days after birth (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.37, moderate quality evidence), perinatal death (stillbirth and death in the first week of life) (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.38, moderate quality evidence), influenza-like illness in women (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.16) or their babies (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09), any respiratory illness in women (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04, high quality evidence) or their babies (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07, high quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between vaccination and placebo control groups in terms of maternal hospitalisation for any infection (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.49; 2116 women, moderate quality evidence), and neonatal hospitalisation for sepsis (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.50; 2049 infants, moderate quality evidence). However, viral influenza vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a reduction in reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed influenza among infants (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88, one study, 2049 infants) and women (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86, one study, 2116 women).In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences in terms of the impact on pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, preterm labour and stillbirth), hospitalisation for respiratory infection among women and infants. Similarly, there was no difference between the viral influenza vaccine and placebo control groups in terms of any adverse systemic reactions. There is limited evidence (from one small trial at a high risk of bias) on the effectiveness on Hib during pregnancy for improving maternal, neonatal and infant health outcomes.Evidence from one large high quality trial on the effectiveness of viral influenza vaccine during pregnancy suggests reduced RT-PCR confirmed influenza among women and their babies, suggesting the potential of this strategy for scale up but further evidence from varying contexts is required.Further trials for both Hib and viral influenza vaccines with appropriate study designs and suitable comparison groups are required. There are currently two 'ongoing' studies - these will be incorporated into the review in future updates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 172 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Bachelor 29 16%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 33 18%
Unknown 40 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Psychology 11 6%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 50 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 15 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,208,444
of 16,024,087 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,235
of 11,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,223
of 233,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#91
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,024,087 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 233,348 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.