↓ Skip to main content

Methodological choices affect cancer incidence rates: a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Methodological choices affect cancer incidence rates: a cohort study
Published in
Population Health Metrics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12963-017-0120-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah L. Brooke, Mats Talbäck, Maria Feychting, Rickard Ljung

Abstract

Incidence rates are fundamental to epidemiology, but their magnitude and interpretation depend on methodological choices. We aimed to examine the extent to which the definition of the study population affects cancer incidence rates. All primary cancer diagnoses in Sweden between 1958 and 2010 were identified from the national Cancer Register. Age-standardized and age-specific incidence rates of 29 cancer subtypes between 2000 and 2010 were calculated using four definitions of the study population: persons resident in Sweden 1) based on general population statistics; 2) with no previous subtype-specific cancer diagnosis; 3) with no previous cancer diagnosis except non-melanoma skin cancer; and 4) with no previous cancer diagnosis of any type. We calculated absolute and relative differences between methods. Age-standardized incidence rates calculated using general population statistics ranged from 6% lower (prostate cancer, incidence rate difference: -13.5/100,000 person-years) to 8% higher (breast cancer in women, incidence rate difference: 10.5/100,000 person-years) than incidence rates based on individuals with no previous subtype-specific cancer diagnosis. Age-standardized incidence rates in persons with no previous cancer of any type were up to 10% lower (bladder cancer in women) than rates in those with no previous subtype-specific cancer diagnosis; however, absolute differences were <5/100,000 person-years for all cancer subtypes. For some cancer subtypes incidence rates vary depending on the definition of the study population. For these subtypes, standardized incidence ratios calculated using general population statistics could be misleading. Moreover, etiological arguments should be used to inform methodological choices during study design.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 25%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 42%
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 12 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,443,875
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#307
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,018
of 417,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 417,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.