| Title |
Racial disparities in endometrial cancer mortality-to-incidence ratios among Blacks and Whites in South Carolina
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-016-0724-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oluwole A. Babatunde, Swann Arp Adams, Jan M. Eberth, Michael D. Wirth, Seul Ki Choi, James R. Hebert |
| Abstract |
Endometrial cancer (EC) exhibits striking racial disparities with higher mortality in Blacks compared to Whites. The mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) provides a population-based measure of survival which accounts for incidence. The objective of this study was to map EC MIRs by race for eight health regions within South Carolina (SC) and chart EC incidence by race and grade across the four cancer stages. Cancer incidence and mortality data were obtained from the SC Community Access Network (SCAN), the online data query system provided by the SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). The underlying data for SCAN were generated from the SC Central Cancer Registry and SC DHEC Vital Records and used to construct MIRs. ArcGIS 10.1 was used to map EC MIRs by race for eight health regions within SC. Four categories of MIR were derived using the national MIR for EC among Whites as the reference category. Blacks had higher levels of poorly differentiated tumors across all stages and higher incidence and mortality rates. In all eight health regions, Blacks were in the highest MIR category. By contrast, the MIRs for Whites were more evenly represented over the four categories. The MIR proved useful for identifying disparities in EC incidence and mortality among Black and White women in SC. Cancer surveillance programs may use the MIR to monitor disparities across racial/ethnic groups and geographic regions going forward. MIRs have the potential to serve as an indicator of the long-term success of cancer surveillance programs. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#16,171,492
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#1,632
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,507
of 403,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 403,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.