↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

ConjugateHaemophilus influenzaetype b vaccines for sickle cell disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
ConjugateHaemophilus influenzaetype b vaccines for sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011199.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Slimane Allali, Martin Chalumeau, Odile Launay, Samir K Ballas, Mariane de Montalembert

Abstract

People affected with sickle cell disease are at high risk of infection from Haemophilus influenzae type b. Before the implementation of Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccination in high-income countries, this was responsible for a high mortality rate in children under five years of age. In African countries, where coverage of this vaccination is still extremely low, Haemophilus influenzae type b remains one of the most common cause of bacteraemias in children with sickle cell disease. The increased uptake of this conjugate vaccination may substantially improve the survival of children with sickle cell disease. The primary objective was to determine whether Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccines reduce mortality and morbidity in children and adults with sickle cell disease.The secondary objectives were to assess the following in children and adults with sickle cell disease: the immunogenicity of Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccines; the safety of these vaccines; and any variation in effect according to type of vaccine, mode of administration (separately or in combination with other vaccines), number of doses, and age at first dose. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies to identify unpublished trials.Date of last search: 23 November 2015. All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccines with placebo or no treatment, or comparing different types of Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccines in people with sickle cell disease. No trials of Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccines in people with sickle cell disease were found. There is an absence of evidence from randomised controlled trials relating to the subject of this review. There has been a dramatic decrease in the incidence of invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b infections observed in the post-vaccination era in people with sickle cell disease living in high-income countries. Therefore, despite the absence of evidence from randomised controlled trials, it is expected that Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccines may be useful in children affected with sickle cell disease, especially in African countries where there is a high prevalence of the disease. The implementation of childhood immunisation schedules, including universal Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccination, may substantially improve the survival of children with sickle cell disease living in low-income countries. We currently lack data to evaluate the potential effect of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination among unvaccinated adults with sickle cell disease. Further research should assess the optimal Hib immunisation schedule in children and adults with sickle cell disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 8 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,223,084
of 15,456,279 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,891
of 11,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,827
of 270,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,456,279 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 270,917 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.