↓ Skip to main content

Vaccines for preventing infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Vaccines for preventing infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001399.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helle Krogh Johansen, Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract

Chronic pulmonary infection in cystic fibrosis results in progressive lung damage. Once colonisation of the lungs with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occurs, it is almost impossible to eradicate. Vaccines, aimed at reducing infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, have been developed. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the effectiveness of vaccination against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register using the terms vaccines AND pseudomonas (last search 30 March 2015). We previously searched PubMed using the terms vaccin* AND cystic fibrosis (last search 30 May 2013). Randomised trials (published or unpublished) comparing Pseudomonas aeruginosa vaccines (oral, parenteral or intranasal) with control vaccines or no intervention in cystic fibrosis. The authors independently selected trials, assessed them and extracted data. Six trials were identified. Two trials were excluded since they were not randomised and one old, small trial because it was not possible to assess whether is was randomised. The three included trials comprised 483, 476 and 37 patients, respectively. No data have been published from one of the large trials, but the company stated in a press release that the trial failed to confirm the results from an earlier study and that further clinical development was suspended. In the other large trial, relative risk for chronic infection was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.49), and in the small trial, the risk was also close to one. In the large trial, one patient was reported to have died in the observation period. In that trial, 227 adverse events (4 severe) were registered in the vaccine group and 91 (1 severe) in the control group. In this large trial of a vaccine developed against flagella antigens, antibody titres against the epitopes contained in the vaccine were higher in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Vaccines against Pseudomonas aeruginosa cannot be recommended.

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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 80 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 10 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,534,878
of 13,149,811 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,340
of 10,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,756
of 238,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#226
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,149,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 238,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.