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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
GH1 T1663A polymorphism and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of case–control studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-013-1596-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jing Shi, Jian-Huan Tong, Shuang Cai |
| Abstract |
Many studies have demonstrated that the most common polymorphism (T1663A, rs2665802) in the promoter region of growth hormone 1 (GH1) gene might play an important role in cancer development and progression. This meta-analysis aims to investigate a more precise estimation of the relationship between GH1 T1663A polymorphism and cancer risk. We searched CISCOM, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from inception through October 1st, 2013. Meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0 software. Seven studies were included with a total of 4,018 cancer patients and 5,308 healthy controls. Our meta-analysis results revealed that GH1 T1663A polymorphism was associated with increased cancer risks. Subgroup analysis by cancer type showed significant associations between GH1 T1663A polymorphism and increased colorectal cancer risk, but there was no evidence of any association with breast cancer. Further subgroup analysis based on ethnicity indicated that GH1 T1663A polymorphism might increase cancer risks among Asian populations. However, no statistically significant association was found among Caucasian populations. Meta-regression analyses also suggested that cancer type and ethnicity may be the main sources of heterogeneity. No publication bias was detected in this meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis indicates that GH1 T1663A polymorphism may contribute to the risk of colorectal cancer, especially among Asian populations. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 23% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 15% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
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 27 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,310,749
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,050
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,386
of 306,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#31
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 306,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.