↓ Skip to main content

Association between Body Powder Use and Ovarian Cancer: The African American Cancer Epidemiology Study (AACES)

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 4,323)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
72 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Association between Body Powder Use and Ovarian Cancer: The African American Cancer Epidemiology Study (AACES)
Published in
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, October 2016
DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-1281
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joellen M. Schildkraut, Sarah E. Abbott, Anthony J. Alberg, Elisa V. Bandera, Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Melissa L. Bondy, Michele L. Cote, Ellen Funkhouser, Lauren C. Peres, Edward S. Peters, Ann G. Schwartz, Paul Terry, Sydnee Crankshaw, Fabian Camacho, Frances Wang, Patricia G. Moorman

Abstract

Epidemiologic studies indicate increased ovarian cancer risk among women who use genital powder, but this has not been thoroughly investigated in African American (AA) women, a group with a high prevalence of use. We evaluate the relationship between use of genital powder and non-genital powder in invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Subjects are 584 cases and 745 controls enrolled in the African American Epidemiology Cancer Study, an ongoing, population-based case-control study of EOC in AA women in 11 geographic locations in the U.S. AA controls were frequency matched to cases on residence and age. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between genital and non-genital powder exposure and EOC risk, controlling for potential confounders. Powder use was common (62.8 % of cases and 52.9% of controls). Genital powder was associated with an increased risk of EOC (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.86) and a dose-response relationship was found for duration of use and number of lifetime applications (p <0.05). Non-genital use was also associated with EOC risk, particularly among non-serous EOC cases (OR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.39, 3.74). An association between powder use and upper respiratory conditions suggests an enhanced inflammatory response may explain the association between body powder and EOC. In a study of AA women, body powder use was significantly associated with EOC risk. The results support that body powder is a modifiable risk factor for EOC among AA women.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Master 4 14%
Professor 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 7 25%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Mathematics 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 6 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 600. 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 16 May 2022.
All research outputs
#27,098
of 21,349,333 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#15
of 4,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#657
of 281,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#1
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,349,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 281,559 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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 99% of its contemporaries.