↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B andHaemophilus influenzaeB (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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
13 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
Title
Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B andHaemophilus influenzaeB (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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 165 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 20%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 49 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 11%
Psychology 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 57 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,180,572
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,727
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,393
of 163,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 163,426 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 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 64% of its contemporaries.