↓ Skip to main content

Competing risk bias to explain the inverse relationship between smoking and malignant melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Epidemiology, May 2013
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Competing risk bias to explain the inverse relationship between smoking and malignant melanoma
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10654-013-9812-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline A. Thompson, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Onyebuchi A. Arah

Abstract

The relationship between smoking and melanoma remains unclear. Among the different results is the paradoxical finding that smoking was shown to be inversely associated with the risk of malignant melanoma in some large cohort and case-control studies, even after control for suspected confounding variables. Smoking is a known risk factor for many non-communicable diseases, including coronary heart disease, stroke, as well as other malignancies; it has been shown to be positively associated with other types of skin cancer, and there remains no clear biologic explanation for a possible protective effect on malignant melanoma. In this paper, we propose a plausible mechanism of bias from smoking-related competing risks that may explain or contribute to the inverse association between smoking and melanoma as spurious. Using directed acyclic graphs for formalization and visualization of assumptions, and Monte Carlo simulation techniques, we demonstrate how published inverse associations might be compatible with selection bias resulting from uncontrolled or unmeasured common causes of competing outcomes of smoking-related diseases and malignant melanoma. We present results from various scenarios assuming a true null as well as a true positive association between smoking and malignant melanoma. Under a true null assumption, we find inverse associations due to the biasing mechanism to be compatible with published results in the literature, especially after the addition of unmeasured confounding variables. This study could be seen as offering a cautionary note in the interpretation of published smoking-melanoma findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 50%
Mathematics 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,951,939
of 24,796,946 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#522
of 1,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,869
of 199,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,796,946 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 199,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 66% of its contemporaries.