↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for preventing non-melanoma skin cancers in high-risk groups

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Interventions for preventing non-melanoma skin cancers in high-risk groups
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005414.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona J Bath-Hextall, Jo Leonardi-Bee, Neal Somchand, Angela C Webster, Jim Dellit, William Perkins

Abstract

Some groups of people have a greater risk of developing common non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC). To evaluate interventions for preventing NMSC in people at high risk of developing NMSC. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (March 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2007, MEDLINE (from 2003 to March 2007), EMBASE (from 2005 to March 2007), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (February 2007). References from trials and reviews were also searched. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted for unpublished trials. Randomised controlled trials of adults and children at high risk of developing NMSC. Two review authors independently selected studies and assessed their methodological quality. We identified 10 trials (7,229 participants) that assessed a variety of interventions. One trial found T4N5 liposome lotion significantly reduced the rate of appearance of new BCCs in people with xeroderma pigmentosum. One of three trials of renal transplant recipients showed a significantly reduced risk of new NMSCs when acitretin was compared to placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.22 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.90) and no significant difference in risk of adverse events in two trials (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.61). In three trials conducted in people with a history of NMSC, the evidence was inconclusive for the development of BCCs for retinol or isoretinoin. However the risk of a new SCC in one trial (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.76) and adverse events in another trial (RR 1.76 95% CI 1.57 to 1.97) were significantly increased in the isotretinoin group compared with placebo. In one trial selenium showed a reduced risk of other types of cancer compared with placebo (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.85) but also a significantly elevated risk of a new NMSC (HR 1.17 95% CI 1.02 to 1.34). The evidence for one trial of beta-carotene was inconclusive; and there was a trend towards fewer new NMSC in a trial of a reduced fat diet (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.31), p=0.09. Some preventative treatments may benefit people at high risk of developing NMSC, but the ability to draw firm conclusions is limited by small numbers of trials, often with one trial per intervention or with inconsistent results between studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 140 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 21%
Student > Master 28 19%
Researcher 19 13%
Other 10 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 18 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 23 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,112,735
of 13,122,094 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,733
of 10,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,617
of 147,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#47
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,122,094 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 147,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.