↓ Skip to main content

Smokeless tobacco and oral potentially malignant disorders in South Asia: a protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Smokeless tobacco and oral potentially malignant disorders in South Asia: a protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0320-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zohaib Khan, Sheraz Khan, Lara Christianson, Sara Rehman, Obinna Ekwunife, Florence Samkange-Zeeb

Abstract

Oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) are chronic lesions or conditions characterized by a potential for malignant transformation. Apart from being possible pre-cursors to oral cancer, OPMDs themselves are usually painful and debilitating conditions having an influence on the quality of life, both in terms of pain and social disability. Smokeless tobacco (SLT) use is considered a major risk factor for OPMDs. SLT use is a culturally and socially acceptable habit in South Asia. According to a recent report, 90 % of the SLT burden of the whole world lies in the South Asian countries of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Afghanistan, and Maldives. This review aims to assess the association between the use of various SLT products in South Asia and risk of OPMDs. This review will focus on epidemiological studies on the use of SLT and risk modification for OPMDs, which have been carried out in the human population of South Asian countries. Articles reporting estimates of relative risk, e.g., odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for SLT users versus non-users. Articles reporting data from which these effect estimates can be computed will be included in the review. We will search MEDLINE, the Science Citation Index (SCI), Scopus, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases for relevant literature using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms, where applicable. Appropriate sources of gray literature will also be included in the search. The electronic searches will be supplemented by a hand search of the bibliographies of the included articles. The included studies will be assessed for their quality using an established quality assessment tool. All relevant data from the included articles will be recorded in an MS Excel spread sheet and then transferred to Rev Man 5.3 to carry out a meta-analysis. Heterogeneity among the estimates will be assessed through the I (2) statistic. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis will be carried out to see the effects of individual or group of studies on the pooled effect estimate. Results of the review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This review may have a potential limitation with regard to the designs of the studies included as we expect that most of the included studies will be of the observational types. We will however try to address this issue by conducting sensitivity and subgroup analysis of similar quality studies. PROSPERO CRD42015029705 .

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 117 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,902
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,891
of 352,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#33
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 352,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.