↓ Skip to main content

Pediatric Complicated Pneumonia Caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae Serotype 3 in 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccinees, Portugal, 2010–2015

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Pediatric Complicated Pneumonia Caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae Serotype 3 in 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccinees, Portugal, 2010–2015
Published in
Emerging Infectious Diseases, July 2018
DOI 10.3201/eid2407.180029
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Silva-Costa et al.

Abstract

Despite use of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, incidence of pleural effusion and empyema (pediatric complicated pneumococcal pneumonia [PCPP]) is reportedly increasing globally. We cultured and performed PCR on 152 pleural fluid samples recovered from pediatric patients in Portugal during 2010-2015 to identify and serotype Streptococcus pneumoniae. We identified only 17 cases by culture, but molecular methods identified S. pneumoniae in 68% (92/135) of culture-negative samples. The most frequent serotypes were 3, 1, and 19A, together accounting for 62% (68/109) of cases. Nineteen cases attributable to 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) serotypes (mostly serotype 3) were detected among 22 children age-appropriately vaccinated with PCV13. The dominance of the additional serotypes included in PCV13 among PCPP cases in Portugal continues, even with PCV13 available on the private market (without reimbursement) since 2010 and with average annual coverage of 61% among age-eligible children. Our data suggest reduced effectiveness of PCV13 against serotype 3 PCPP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 15 31%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 16%
Unspecified 6 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,201,811
of 15,549,387 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#3,624
of 7,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,134
of 279,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#49
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,549,387 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,490 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 51% 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 279,813 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 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 56% of its contemporaries.