↓ Skip to main content

Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae B (HIB)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae B (HIB)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005530.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edna S Bar-On, Elad Goldberg, Sarah Hellmann, Leonard Leibovici

Abstract

Advantages to combining childhood vaccines include reducing the number of visits, injections and patient discomfort, increasing compliance and optimising prevention. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that routine infant immunisation programmes include a vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae (H. influenzae) type B (HIB) in the combined diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP)-hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination. The effectiveness and safety of the combined vaccine should be carefully and systematically assessed to ensure its acceptability by the community.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 99 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 23 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,248,312
of 15,037,508 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,481
of 11,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,675
of 125,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,037,508 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 125,820 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.