| Title |
A prospective study of oral contraceptive use and colorectal adenomas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-016-0752-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brittany M. Charlton, Edward Giovannucci, Charles S. Fuchs, Andrew T. Chan, Jung Eun Lee, Yin Cao, Stacey A. Missmer, Bernard A. Rosner, Susan E. Hankinson, Walter Willett, Kana Wu, Karin B. Michels |
| Abstract |
The influence of reproductive factors on colorectal cancer, including oral contraceptive (OC) use, has been examined, but less research is available on OC use and adenomas. Participants of the Nurses' Health Study who had a lower bowel endoscopy between 1986 (when endoscopies were first assessed) and 2008 were included in this study. Multivariable logistic regression models for clustered data were used to estimate odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals [OR (95 % CIs)]. Among 73,058 participants, 51 % (n = 37,382) reported ever using OCs. Ever OC use was associated with a slight increase in non-advanced adenomas [OR 1.11, 95 % CI (1.02, 1.21)] but not with any other endpoints. Duration of OC use was not associated with adenomas, but longer times since last OC use were associated with increased odds of adenomas [e.g., compared to never use, 15+ years since last use: OR 1.17 (1.07, 1.27)]. Shorter times since last OC use were inversely associated [e.g., ≤4 years since last use: OR 0.74 (0.65, 0.84)]. We observed a modest borderline increase in risk of colorectal adenomas with any prior OC use. Additionally, more recent OC use may decrease risk, while exposure in the distant past may modestly increase risk of adenomas. |
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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 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 03 May 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
#183,175
of 302,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#15
of 25 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 302,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.