| Title |
Pioglitazone and bladder cancer risk: a multipopulation pooled, cumulative exposure analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetologia, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00125-014-3456-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Levin, Samira Bell, Reijo Sund, Sirpa A. Hartikainen, Jaakko Tuomilehto, Eero Pukkala, Ilmo Keskimäki, Ellena Badrick, Andrew G. Renehan, Iain E. Buchan, Samantha L. Bowker, Jasjeet K. Minhas-Sandhu, Zafar Zafari, Carlo Marra, Jeffrey A. Johnson, Bruno H. Stricker, Andrè G. Uitterlinden, Albert Hofman, Rikje Ruiter, Catherine E. de Keyser, Thomas M. MacDonald, Sarah H. Wild, Paul M. McKeigue, Helen M. Colhoun, on behalf of the Scottish Diabetes Research Network Epidemiology Group and the Diabetes and Cancer Research Consortium |
| Abstract |
The evidence on the association between pioglitazone use and bladder cancer is contradictory, with many studies subject to allocation bias. The aim of our study was to examine the effect of exposure to pioglitazone on bladder cancer risk internationally across several cohorts. The potential for allocation bias was minimised by focusing on the cumulative effect of pioglitazone as the primary endpoint using a time-dependent approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 21% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 17% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 22% |
| Unknown | 23 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 33% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 15 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#609,124
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#304
of 5,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,250
of 373,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#5
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 373,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.