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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Os fatores de riscos alimentares para câncer colorretal relacionado ao consumo de carnes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s0080-62342012000100031 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexandra Paola Zandonai, Helena Megumi Sonobe, Namie Okino Sawada |
| Abstract |
The integrative review is one of the methodologies used for evidence-based practice which, in this study, had the objective of surveying and synthesizing the evidence available in the literature regarding the dietary risks for colorectal cancer related to the consumption of meat. The search was made using the LILACS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and COCHRANE Library databases, and six studies considered pertinent to the consumption of meat were found. Meta-analyses showed that there is an association between the consumption of red meat and an increased risk for colorectal cancer from 28% to 35%, whereas processed meats are associated with a rise in risk from 20% to 49%. Evidence shows that the consumption of red meat, processed meat, and total meat consumption are risk factors for developing polyps and colorectal cancer. The search did not yield any studies referring to the consumption of chicken or fish as risk factors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 July 2021.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP
#208
of 772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,673
of 171,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 772 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 171,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.