| Title |
Indoor tanning and the risk of developing non-cutaneous cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-018-1070-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dylan E. O’Sullivan, Troy W. R. Hillier, Darren R. Brenner, Cheryl E. Peters, Will D. King |
| Abstract |
Despite a strong association between indoor tanning and the risk of cutaneous cancers, the relationship between indoor tanning and non-cutaneous cancers is unknown. Our objective was to estimate the association of indoor tanning with developing non-cutaneous cancers. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the association between indoor tanning and non-cutaneous cancer sites. Associations were estimated using random effects models. Heterogeneity was investigated through subgroup analyses and the Q-test and I2 statistics. From 15 identified studies, 33 effect estimates for 12 cancer sites were included in the review. Adjustment for sun exposure was a significant source of heterogeneity in the association of indoor tanning and non-cutaneous cancer risk (meta-regression p = 0.0043). When restricting to studies that adjusted for solar ultraviolet radiation (7 studies and 19 effect estimates) a potential increased risk was observed among ever users of indoor tanning devices with the risk of hematologic malignancies (pooled relative risk = 1.11; 95% CI 0.96-1.28), with differing effects observed by hematologic types and subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. No association was observed among solid non-cutaneous cancers (pooled relative risk = 0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.19). Neither study design nor geographical region was significant sources of heterogeneity in these associations. When controlling for sun exposure, indoor tanning does not protect against solid non-cutaneous cancers and may increase the risk of some hematologic malignancies. Given the well-established relationship with skin cancer and potential relationship with hematologic malignancies, efforts to reduce the use of indoor tanning devices should continue. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 41% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
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 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#18,698,308
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#1,770
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,228
of 334,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 334,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.