↓ Skip to main content

Pancreatic Cancer: A Review of the Evidence on Causation

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, March 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pancreatic Cancer: A Review of the Evidence on Causation
Published in
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, March 2008
DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.12.041
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew R. Hart, Hugh Kennedy, Ian Harvey

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer kills more than 250,000 people each year worldwide and has a poor prognosis. The aim of this article is to critically review the epidemiologic evidence for exposures that may either increase or decrease the risk. A Medline search was performed for epidemiologic studies and reviews published up to April 2007. Consistent evidence of a positive association was found for family history and cigarette smoking. Many studies documented a positive association with diabetes mellitus and chronic pancreatitis, although the etiologic mechanisms are unclear. Other associations were detected, but the results were either inconsistent or from few studies. These included positive associations with red meat, sugar, fat, body mass index, gallstones, and Helicobacter pylori, and protective effects of increasing parity, dietary folate, aspirin, and statins. There was no evidence linking alcohol or coffee consumption with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. The associations with many exposures need to be clarified from further epidemiologic work in which there is both precise measurement of risk factors, adjustment for potential confounders, and, for dietary studies, information recorded on the method of food preparation and pattern of consumption. Such work is important to reduce the incidence of this fatal disease.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
#4,206
of 4,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,575
of 95,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
#27
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 95,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.