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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of smoking on physical and cognitive capability in later life: a multicohort study using observational and genetic approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008393 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Teri-Louise North, Tom M Palmer, Sarah J Lewis, Rachel Cooper, Chris Power, Alison Pattie, John M Starr, Ian J Deary, Richard M Martin, Avan Aihie Sayer, Meena Kumari, Cyrus Cooper, Mika Kivimaki, Diana Kuh, Yoav Ben-Shlomo, Ian N M Day |
| Abstract |
The observed associations between smoking and functional measures at older ages are vulnerable to bias and confounding. Mendelian randomisation (MR) uses genotype as an instrumental variable to estimate unconfounded causal associations. We conducted a meta-analysis of the observational associations and implemented an MR approach using the smoking-related single nucleotide polymorphism rs16969968 to explore their causal nature. 9 British cohorts belonging to the HALCyon collaboration. Individual participant data on N=26 692 individuals of European ancestry (N from earliest phase analysed per study) of mean ages 50-79 years were available for inclusion in observational meta-analyses of the primary outcomes. Physical capability, cognitive capability and cognitive decline. The smoking exposures were cigarettes per day, current versus ex-smoker, current versus never smoker and ever versus never smoker. In observational analyses current and ever smoking were generally associated with poorer physical and cognitive capability. For example, current smokers had a general fluid cognition score which was 0.17 z-score units (95% CI -0.221 to -0.124) lower than ex-smokers in cross-sectional analyses. Current smokers had a walk speed which was 0.25 z-score units lower than never smokers (95% CI -0.338 to -0.170). An MR instrumental variable approach for current versus ex-smoker and number of cigarettes smoked per day produced CIs which neither confirmed nor refuted the observational estimates. The number of genetic associations stratified by smoking status were consistent with type I error. Our observational analysis supports the hypothesis that smoking is detrimental to physical and cognitive capability. Further studies are needed for a suitably powered MR approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Comoros | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 28% |
| Psychology | 9 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,164,389
of 25,547,904 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#7,569
of 25,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,021
of 397,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#174
of 443 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,547,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 397,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 443 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 60% of its contemporaries.