↓ Skip to main content

Racial/ethnic differences in the epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies.

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Epidemiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Racial/ethnic differences in the epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies.
Published in
International Journal of Epidemiology, December 2017
DOI 10.1093/ije/dyx252
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren C Peres, Harvey Risch, Kathryn L Terry, Penelope M Webb, Marc T Goodman, Anna H Wu, Anthony J Alberg, Elisa V Bandera, Jill Barnholtz-Sloan, Melissa L Bondy, Michele L Cote, Ellen Funkhouser, Patricia G Moorman, Edward S Peters, Ann G Schwartz, Paul D Terry, Ani Manichaikul, Sarah E Abbott, Fabian Camacho, Susan J Jordan, Christina M Nagle, Mary Anne Rossing, Jennifer A Doherty, Francesmary Modugno, Kirsten Moysich, Roberta Ness, Andrew Berchuck, Linda Cook, Nhu Le, Angela Brooks-Wilson, Weiva Sieh, Alice Whittemore, Valerie McGuire, Joseph Rothstein, Hoda Anton-Culver, Argyrios Ziogas, Celeste L Pearce, Chiuchen Tseng, Malcom Pike, Joellen M Schildkraut

Abstract

Ovarian cancer incidence differs substantially by race/ethnicity, but the reasons for this are not well understood. Data were pooled from the African American Cancer Epidemiology Study (AACES) and 11 case-control studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) to examine racial/ethnic differences in epidemiological characteristics with suspected involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) aetiology. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate associations for 17 reproductive, hormonal and lifestyle characteristics and EOC risk by race/ethnicity among 10 924 women with invasive EOC (8918 Non-Hispanic Whites, 433 Hispanics, 911 Blacks, 662 Asian/Pacific Islanders) and 16 150 controls (13 619 Non-Hispanic Whites, 533 Hispanics, 1233 Blacks, 765 Asian/Pacific Islanders). Likelihood ratio tests were used to evaluate heterogeneity in the risk factor associations by race/ethnicity. We observed statistically significant racial/ethnic heterogeneity for hysterectomy and EOC risk (P = 0.008), where the largest odds ratio (OR) was observed in Black women [OR = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.34-2.02] compared with other racial/ethnic groups. Although not statistically significant, the associations for parity, first-degree family history of ovarian or breast cancer, and endometriosis varied by race/ethnicity. Asian/Pacific Islanders had the greatest magnitude of association for parity (≥3 births: OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.28-0.54), and Black women had the largest ORs for family history (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.42-2.21) and endometriosis (OR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.65-3.55). Although racial/ethnic heterogeneity was observed for hysterectomy, our findings support the validity of EOC risk factors across all racial/ethnic groups, and further suggest that any racial/ethnic population with a higher prevalence of a modifiable risk factor should be targeted to disseminate information about prevention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 38 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 43 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,369,287
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Epidemiology
#4,583
of 5,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,568
of 438,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Epidemiology
#46
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 438,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.