| Title |
The association between the inflammatory potential of diet and risk of developing, and survival following, a diagnosis of ovarian cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nutrition, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00394-018-1779-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. M. Nagle, T. Ibiebele, N. Shivappa, J. R. Hébert, A. DeFazio, P. M. Webb, for the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study |
| Abstract |
Inflammation has been implicated in ovarian carcinogenesis. This study evaluated two dietary indices: the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII®) and the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP), in relation to risk of developing, and survival following, a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Data came from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (1375 cases, 1415 population controls). DII and EDIP scores were computed from dietary information obtained using a semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between DII and EDIP scores and risk of ovarian cancer and proportional hazards models were used for survival analysis. A high DII score, reflecting a more pro-inflammatory diet, was associated with a modest increased risk of ovarian cancer [odds ratio (OR) DII scoreQ4 vs.Q1 = 1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.63, ptrend = 0.014]. Likewise a high EDIP score was associated with an increase in risk of ovarian cancer [OR EDIP scoreQ4 vs.Q1 = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.73, ptrend = 0.002]. We found no association between DII or EDIP score and overall or ovarian cancer-specific survival. In conclusion, our results suggest that a pro-inflammatory diet modestly increases the risk of developing ovarian cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Greece | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 12% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 52% |
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 12 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,540,879
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#1,737
of 2,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,198
of 329,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#42
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 329,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.