↓ Skip to main content

The controversy about a possible relationship between mobile phone use and cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
The controversy about a possible relationship between mobile phone use and cancer
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, August 2010
DOI 10.1590/s1413-81232010000500016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Kundi

Abstract

Over the last decade, mobile phone use increased to almost 100% prevalence in many countries. Evidence for potential health hazards accumulated in parallel by epidemiologic investigations has raised controversies about the appropriate interpretation and the degree of bias and confounding responsible for reduced or increased risk estimates. Overall, 33 epidemiologic studies were identified in the peer-reviewed literature, mostly (25) about brain tumors. Methodologic considerations revealed that three important conditions for epidemiologic studies to detect an increased risk are not met:no evidence-based exposure metric is available; the observed duration of mobile phone use is generally still too low; no evidence-based selection of end points among the grossly different types of neoplasias is possible because of lack of etiologic hypotheses. The overall evidence speaks in favor of an increased risk, but its magnitude cannot be assessed at present because of insufficient information on long-term use.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,657,031
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#289
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,441
of 104,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 104,664 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 93% of its contemporaries.