| Title |
Childhood brain tumour risk and its association with wireless phones: a commentary
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Health, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1476-069x-10-106 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fredrik Söderqvist, Michael Carlberg, Kjell Hansson Mild, Lennart Hardell |
| Abstract |
Case-control studies on adults point to an increased risk of brain tumours (glioma and acoustic neuroma) associated with the long-term use of mobile phones. Recently, the first study on mobile phone use and the risk of brain tumours in children and adolescents, CEFALO, was published. It has been claimed that this relatively small study yielded reassuring results of no increased risk. We do not agree. We consider that the data contain several indications of increased risk, despite low exposure, short latency period, and limitations in the study design, analyses and interpretation. The information certainly cannot be used as reassuring evidence against an association, for reasons that we discuss in this commentary. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Finland | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 31% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,076,074
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#586
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,805
of 242,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 242,888 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.