↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of the epidemiological evidence comparing lung cancer risk in smokers of mentholated and unmentholated cigarettes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Systematic review of the epidemiological evidence comparing lung cancer risk in smokers of mentholated and unmentholated cigarettes
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, April 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2466-11-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter N Lee

Abstract

US mentholated cigarette sales have increased considerably over 50 years. Preference for mentholated cigarettes is markedly higher in Black people. While menthol itself is not genotoxic or carcinogenic, its acute respiratory effects might affect inhalation of cigarette smoke. This possibility seems consistent with the higher lung cancer risk in Black men, despite Black people smoking less and starting smoking later than White people. Despite experimental data suggesting similar carcinogenicity of mentholated and non-mentholated cigarettes, the lack of convincing evidence that mentholation increases puffing, inhalation or smoke uptake, and the similarity of lung cancer rates in Black and White females, a review of cigarette mentholation and lung cancer is timely given current regulatory interest in the topic.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
India 1 2%
Unknown 57 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Psychology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,413,742
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#466
of 1,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,660
of 109,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 109,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.