↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

110 tweeters
4 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page
1 Redditor


26 Dimensions

Readers on

169 Mendeley
Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010089.pub3
Pubmed ID

Mohd N Norhayati, Jacqueline J Ho, Mohd Y Azman


Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common infectious diseases in children. It has been reported that 64% of infants have an episode of AOM by the age of six months and 86% by one year. Although most cases of AOM are due to bacterial infection, it is commonly triggered by a viral infection. In most children AOM is self limiting, but it does carry a risk of complications. Since antibiotic treatment increases the risk of antibiotic resistance, influenza vaccines might be an effective way of reducing this risk by preventing the development of AOM. To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media in infants and children. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov (15 February 2017). We also searched the reference lists of included studies to identify any additional trials. Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccine with placebo or no treatment in infants and children aged younger than six years. We included children of either sex and of any ethnicity, with or without a history of recurrent AOM. Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects and fixed-effect models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included 11 trials (6 trials in high-income countries and 5 multicentre trials in high-, middle-, and low-income countries) involving 17,123 children aged 6 months to 6 years. Eight trials recruited participants from a healthcare setting. Ten trials (and all four trials that contributed to the primary outcome) declared funding from vaccine manufacturers. Four trials reported adequate allocation concealment, and 10 trials reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel. Attrition was low for eight trials included in the analysis.The primary outcome showed a small reduction in at least one episode of AOM over at least six months of follow-up (4 trials, 3134 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.00; NNTB 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100; low-quality evidence).The subgroup analyses (i.e. number of courses and types of vaccine administered) showed no differences.There was a reduction in the use of antibiotics in vaccinated children (2 trials, 1223 children; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; moderate-quality evidence).We were unable to demonstrate whether there was any difference in the utilisation of health care. The use of influenza vaccine resulted in a significant increase in fever (7 trials, 10,615 children; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; RD 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.04; low-quality evidence), rhinorrhoea (6 trials, 10,563 children; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16; low-quality evidence), but no difference in pharyngitis. No major adverse events were reported.Differing from the protocol, the original publication of the review included a subgroup analysis of AOM episodes by season, and the secondary outcome 'types of influenza vaccine' was changed to a subgroup analysis. For this update, we removed the subgroup analyses for trial setting, season, and utilisation of health care due to the small number of trials involved. We removed Belshe 2000 from primary and secondary outcomes (courses of vaccine and types of vaccine) because it reported episodes of AOM per person. We did not perform a subgroup analysis by type of adverse event. We have reported each type of adverse event as a separate analysis. Influenza vaccine results in a small reduction in AOM. The observed reduction in the use of antibiotics needs to be considered in light of current recommended practices aimed at avoiding antibiotic overuse. Safety data from these trials were limited. The benefits may not justify the use of influenza vaccine without taking into account the vaccine efficacy in reducing influenza and safety data. We judged the quality of the evidence to be low to moderate. Additional research is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Other 10 6%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 43 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 28 October 2019.
All research outputs
of 17,669,649 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 331,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,669,649 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 11,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 331,766 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 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 90% of its contemporaries.