| Title |
Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and leisure-time sitting in relation to ovarian cancer risk in a large prospective US cohort
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-015-0656-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janet S. Hildebrand, Susan M. Gapstur, Mia M. Gaudet, Peter T. Campbell, Alpa V. Patel |
| Abstract |
Physical activity is hypothesized to lower the risk of ovarian cancer, but current evidence for an association is limited and inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to examine moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, walking, and leisure-time sitting in relation to incident ovarian cancer, overall and by histologic subtype. Moderate-vigorous recreational physical activity (MET-hours/week), recreational walking, and leisure-time sitting were examined in relation to epithelial ovarian cancer in the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort, a US cohort followed for cancer incidence from 1992 to 2011. Exposure information was collected via self-administered questionnaires. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of total, serous, and nonserous ovarian cancer according to MET-hours/week, hours/week of walking, and hours/day of sitting. Among 63,972 postmenopausal women, 651 cases of ovarian cancer were identified during follow-up. Neither MET-hours/week nor walking was associated with risk. However, ≥6 h/day of sitting, compared to <3, was associated with higher risk of ovarian cancer (RR 1.44, 95 % CI 1.12-1.85), particularly for serous cancer (RR 1.52, 95 % CI 1.06-2.16), although statistical heterogeneity by histology was not detected (p = 0.36). Results from this study do not support an association between physical activity and ovarian cancer, whereas prolonged sitting may be associated with higher risk. Additional large studies are needed to further assess possible etiologic differences by histologic subtype. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 39% |
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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,916,538
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#950
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,088
of 270,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#13
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 270,092 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 55% of its contemporaries.