↓ Skip to main content

Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002141.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcela Cortés-Jofré, José-Ramón Rueda, Gilda Corsini-Muñoz, Carolina Fonseca-Cortés, Magali Caraballoso, Xavier Bonfill Cosp

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 2, 2003. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients on lung cancer. Observational epidemiological studies suggest an association between higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables containing beta-carotene and a lower risk of lung cancer. To determine whether vitamins, minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce incidence and mortality from lung cancer in healthy people. For this update we have used a search strategy adapted from the design in the original review. The following electronic databases have been searched up to December 2011: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). References included in published studies and reviews were also screened. Included studies were randomised controlled clinical trials comparing different vitamins, mineral supplements or supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer. Two authors independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed the methodological quality of each trial and extracted data using a standardised form. For each study, relative risk and 95% confidence limits were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and pooled results were calculated using the random-effect model. In the first version of this review four studies were included; in this review update, an additional five studies have been included. Four studies included only males and two only females; two studies included only participants considered at high risk, namely smokers or exposed to asbestos, and one study included people deficient in many micronutrients. Six studies analysed vitamin A, three vitamin C, four vitamin E, one selenium supplements, and six studied combinations of two or more products. All the RCTs included in this review were classified as being of low risk of bias.For people not at high risk of lung cancer and compared to placebo, none of the supplements of vitamins or minerals or their combinations resulted in a statistically significant difference in lung cancer incidence or mortality, except for a single study that included 7627 women and found a higher risk of lung cancer incidence for those taking vitamin C but not for total cancer incidence, but that effect was not seen in males or when the results for males and females were pooled.For people at high risk of lung cancer, such as smokers and those exposed to asbestos and compared to placebo, beta-carotene intake showed a small but statistically significant higher risk of lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality and for all-causes mortality. There is no evidence for recommending supplements of vitamins A, C, E, selenium, either alone or in different combinations, for the prevention of lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in healthy people. There is some evidence that the use of beta-carotene supplements could be associated with a small increase in lung cancer incidence and mortality in smokers or persons exposed to asbestos.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 03 September 2018.
All research outputs
#565,244
of 13,542,438 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,762
of 10,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,063
of 143,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,542,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 143,302 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.