| Title |
Cancer risk in waterpipe smokers: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-016-0856-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ravinder Mamtani, Sohaila Cheema, Javaid Sheikh, Ahmad Al Mulla, Albert Lowenfels, Patrick Maisonneuve |
| Abstract |
To quantify by meta-analysis the relationship between waterpipe smoking and cancer, including cancer of the head and neck, esophagus, stomach, lung and bladder. We performed a systematic literature search to identify relevant studies, scored their quality, used fixed and random-effect models to estimate summary relative risks (SRR), evaluated heterogeneity and publication bias. We retrieved information from 28 published reports. Considering only highquality studies, waterpipe smoking was associated with increased risk of head and neck cancer (SRR 2.97; 95 % CI 2.26-3.90), esophageal cancer (1.84; 1.42-2.38) and lung cancer (2.22; 1.24-3.97), with no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias. Increased risk was also observed for stomach and bladder cancer but based mainly on poor-quality studies. For colorectum, liver and for all sites combined risk estimates were elevated, but there were insufficient reports to perform a meta-analysis. Contrary to the perception of the relative safety of waterpipe smoking, this meta-analysis provides quantitative estimates of its association with cancers of the head and neck, esophagus and lung. The scarcity and limited quality of available reports point out the need for larger carefully designed studies in well-defined populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 12% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 65% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Scientists | 3 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 23 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 09 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,552,877
of 25,766,791 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#153
of 1,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,254
of 373,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#2
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,766,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 373,649 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 36 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 94% of its contemporaries.