| Title |
Sitting time and occupational and recreational physical activity in relation to the risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s147711 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pengxiang Chen, Qingxu Song, Jie Han, Huapu Xu, Tong Chen, Jiaqi Xu, Yufeng Cheng |
| Abstract |
Sitting time and physical activity are associated with cancer risk; however, their roles in the development of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) are inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate the effects of total sitting time, occupational activity time (OAT), and recreational activity time (RAT) on ESCC risk. Five hundred fifty-seven ESCC patients and 543 healthy controls matched by sex and age were recruited for this study. Conditional logistic regression was performed to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Longer total sitting time (adjusted OR [AOR] 2.54, 95% CI 1.58-4.09) and longer OAT (AOR 2.90, 95% CI 2.11-3.99) were associated with higher ESCC risk, while longer RAT (AOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.38) could reduce ESCC risk. When the body mass index was incorporated into the multivariable models, the results changed slightly. In risk estimation according to sex, the same trends were observed in both men and women. Furthermore, longer RAT could completely or partially diminish the impacts of longer sitting time and OAT on increasing ESCC risk. Long sitting time and long OAT can increase the risk of ESCC, while long RAT is significantly associated with decreased ESCC risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 12% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,305,492
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#785
of 2,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,457
of 324,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#25
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,967 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 324,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.