↓ Skip to main content

Chronic Recreational Physical Inactivity and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk: Evidence from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chronic Recreational Physical Inactivity and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk: Evidence from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium
Published in
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, June 2016
DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-1330
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rikki Cannioto, Michael J. LaMonte, Harvey A. Risch, Chi-Chen Hong, Lara E. Sucheston-Campbell, Kevin H. Eng, J. Brian Szender, Jenny Chang-Claude, Barbara Schmalfeldt, Ruediger Klapdor, Emily Gower, Albina N. Minlikeeva, Gary R. Zirpoli, Elisa V. Bandera, Andrew Berchuck, Daniel Cramer, Jennifer A. Doherty, Robert P. Edwards, Brooke L. Fridley, Ellen L. Goode, Marc T. Goodman, Estrid Hogdall, Satoyo Hosono, Allan Jensen, Susan Jordan, on behalf of The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group, Susanne K. Kjaer, Keitaro Matsuo, Roberta B. Ness, Catherine M. Olsen, Sara H. Olson, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Malcolm C. Pike, Mary Anne Rossing, Elizabeth A. Szamreta, Pamela J. Thompson, Chiu-Chen Tseng, Robert A. Vierkant, Penelope M. Webb, Nicolas Wentzensen, Kristine G. Wicklund, Stacey J. Winham, Anna H. Wu, Francesmary Modugno, Joellen M. Schildkraut, Kathryn L. Terry, Linda E. Kelemen, Kirsten B. Moysich

Abstract

Despite a large body of literature evaluating the association between recreational physical activity and epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) risk, the extant evidence is inconclusive and little is known about the independent association between recreational physical inactivity and EOC risk. We conducted a pooled analysis of nine studies from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) to investigate the association between chronic recreational physical inactivity and EOC risk. In accordance with the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, women reporting no regular, weekly recreational physical activity were classified as inactive. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to estimate the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between inactivity and EOC risk overall and by subgroups based upon histotype, menopausal status, race and body mass index (BMI). The current analysis included data from 8,309 EOC patients and 12,612 controls. We observed a significant positive association between inactivity and EOC risk (OR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.14-1.57) and similar associations were observed for each histotype. In this large pooled analysis examining the association between recreational physical inactivity and EOC risk, we observed consistent evidence of an association between chronic inactivity and all EOC histotypes. These data add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that inactivity is an independent risk factor for cancer. If the apparent association between inactivity and EOC risk is substantiated, additional work via targeted interventions should be pursued to characterize the dose of activity required to mitigate the risk of this highly fatal disease.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#820,564
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#303
of 4,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,783
of 367,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#5
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 367,086 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.