↓ 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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 11 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 112 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 21%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 7 6%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 29 25%

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 15 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,519,600
of 17,467,242 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,791
of 11,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,340
of 132,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,467,242 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 132,456 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.