| Title |
Cigarette smoking and risk of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 21 case–control studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-013-0174-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mette T. Faber, Susanne K. Kjær, Christian Dehlendorff, Jenny Chang-Claude, Klaus K. Andersen, Estrid Høgdall, Penelope M. Webb, Susan J. Jordan, The Australian Cancer Study (Ovarian Cancer), Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group, Mary Anne Rossing, Jennifer A. Doherty, Galina Lurie, Pamela J. Thompson, Michael E. Carney, Marc T. Goodman, Roberta B. Ness, Francesmary Modugno, Robert P. Edwards, Clareann H. Bunker, Ellen L. Goode, Brooke L. Fridley, Robert A. Vierkant, Melissa C. Larson, Joellen Schildkraut, Daniel W. Cramer, Kathryn L. Terry, Allison F. Vitonis, Elisa V. Bandera, Sara H. Olson, Melony King, Urmila Chandran, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Leon F. A. G. Massuger, Anne M. van Altena, Sita H. Vermeulen, Louise Brinton, Nicolas Wentzensen, Jolanta Lissowska, Hannah P. Yang, Kirsten B. Moysich, Kunle Odunsi, Karin Kasza, Oluwatosin Odunsi-Akanji, Honglin Song, Paul Pharaoh, Mitul Shah, Alice S. Whittemore, Valerie McGuire, Weiva Sieh, Rebecca Sutphen, Usha Menon, Simon A. Gayther, Susan J. Ramus, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Anna H. Wu, Malcolm C. Pike, Harvey A. Risch, Allan Jensen, On behalf of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 35 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 46 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,695,810
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#1,581
of 2,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,273
of 209,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#30
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 209,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.