| Title |
A randomized controlled trial of calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and risk of benign proliferative breast disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-008-0213-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas E. Rohan, Abdissa Negassa, Rowan T. Chlebowski, Clementina D. Ceria-Ulep, Barbara B. Cochrane, Dorothy S. Lane, Mindy Ginsberg, Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, David L. Page |
| Abstract |
Experimental evidence provides strong support for anti-carcinogenic effects of calcium and vitamin D with respect to breast cancer. Observational epidemiologic data also provide some support for inverse associations with risk. We tested the effect of calcium plus vitamin D supplementation on risk of benign proliferative breast disease, a condition which is associated with increased risk of breast cancer. We used the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. The 36,282 participants were randomized either to 500 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate plus 200 IU of vitamin D(3) (GlaxoSmithKline) twice daily (n = 18,176) or to placebo (n = 18,106). Regular mammograms and clinical breast exams were performed. We identified women who had had a biopsy for benign breast disease and subjected histologic sections from the biopsies to standardized review. After an average follow-up period of 6.8 years, 915 incident cases of benign proliferative breast disease had been ascertained, with 450 in the intervention group and 465 in the placebo group. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation was not associated with altered risk of benign proliferative breast disease overall (hazard ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval = 0.86-1.13), or by histologic subtype. Risk varied significantly by levels of age at baseline, but not by levels of other variables. Daily use of 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate plus 400 IU of vitamin D(3) for almost 7 years by postmenopausal women did not alter the overall risk of benign proliferative breast disease. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,709,809
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#888
of 4,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,281
of 90,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 90,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 73% of its contemporaries.