↓ Skip to main content

The role of income in brain tumor patients: a descriptive register-based study

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Oncology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
The role of income in brain tumor patients: a descriptive register-based study
Published in
Medical Oncology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12032-018-1108-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas Nilsson, Georg Holgersson, Jacob Järås, Stefan Bergström, Michael Bergqvist

Abstract

Socioeconomic status (SES) and its association with cancer in general have been thoroughly studied in the last decades. Several studies have shown associations between SES and many types of cancer such as lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. For gliomas, no clear occupational or exposure risk factors have been identified, although some possible risk factors such as use of cellular telephone are still controversial. The aim in the present study is to analyze whether there is an association between SES and development of brain cancer. Data from 1999 through 2013 were collected from the Swedish Cancer Registry and from the National Statistics of Sweden. Age-standardized incidence rates for people with different income were calculated using linear regression model. A total of 11,892 patients were included, of which 5675 were meningiomas, 1216 low-grade gliomas, and 5001 high-grade gliomas. No clear trend between increasing incidence rates and higher income was seen in neither of the investigated brain tumor histologies. In conclusion, the results should be interpreted with caution, but there does not seem to be a correlation in this material between increased income and development of brain cancer.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 54%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 9 38%
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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,315,637
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Medical Oncology
#556
of 1,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,366
of 333,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Oncology
#10
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,301 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 333,594 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 29 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 65% of its contemporaries.