↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vaccines for post‐exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
Title
Vaccines for post‐exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001833.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristine Macartney, Anita Heywood, Peter McIntyre

Abstract

The prevention of varicella (chickenpox) using live attenuated varicella vaccines has been demonstrated both in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in population-based immunisation programmes in countries such as the United States and Australia. Many countries do not routinely immunise children against varicella and exposures continue to occur. Although the disease is often mild, complications such as secondary bacterial infection, pneumonitis and encephalitis occur in about 1% of cases, usually leading to hospitalisation. The use of varicella vaccine in persons who have recently been exposed to the varicella zoster virus has been studied as a form of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 183 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 15%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 12 7%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 73 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Psychology 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 77 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 29 May 2024.
All research outputs
#2,802,053
of 26,622,753 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,327
of 13,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,443
of 244,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,622,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 244,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 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 57% of its contemporaries.