| Title |
Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000364.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J Cates, Brian H Rowe |
| Abstract |
Influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients in many countries as observational studies have shown that influenza infection can be associated with asthma exacerbations. However, influenza vaccination has the potential to cause wheezing and adversely affect pulmonary function. While an overview concluded that there was no clear benefit of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma, this conclusion was not based on a systematic search of the literature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 18% |
| Spain | 6 | 16% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Panama | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 76% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| Estonia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 283 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 15% |
| Researcher | 32 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 54 | 19% |
| Unknown | 93 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 107 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 8% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 37 | 13% |
| Unknown | 97 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 October 2023.
All research outputs
#707,528
of 24,622,191 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,348
of 12,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,697
of 197,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,622,191 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 197,132 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 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 92% of its contemporaries.