↓ Skip to main content

Childhood brain tumours and use of mobile phones: comparison of a case–control study with incidence data

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Childhood brain tumours and use of mobile phones: comparison of a case–control study with incidence data
Published in
Environmental Health, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-11-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denis Aydin, Maria Feychting, Joachim Schüz, Martin Röösli, CEFALO study team

Abstract

The first case-control study on mobile phone use and brain tumour risk among children and adolescents (CEFALO study) has recently been published. In a commentary published in Environmental Health, Söderqvist and colleagues argued that CEFALO suggests an increased brain tumour risk in relation to wireless phone use. In this article, we respond and show why consistency checks of case-control study results with observed time trends of incidence rates are essential, given the well described limitations of case-control studies and the steep increase of mobile phone use among children and adolescents during the last decade. There is no plausible explanation of how a notably increased risk from use of wireless phones would correspond to the relatively stable incidence time trends for brain tumours among children and adolescents observed in the Nordic countries. Nevertheless, an increased risk restricted to heavy mobile phone use, to very early life exposure, or to rare subtypes of brain tumours may be compatible with stable incidence trends at this time and thus further monitoring of childhood brain tumour incidence rate time trends is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 31%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 4 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 27 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,945,176
of 23,764,938 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#387
of 1,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,137
of 165,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,764,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. 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 165,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.