↓ 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 and Haemophilus influenzae B (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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 142 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 21%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 37 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Psychology 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 44 30%

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 01 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,998,614
of 21,454,959 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,429
of 12,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,052
of 142,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,454,959 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 12,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 142,963 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 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.