↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Toxic elements as biomarkers for breast cancer: a meta-analysis study

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Management and Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Toxic elements as biomarkers for breast cancer: a meta-analysis study
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s151324
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leila Jouybari, Marzieh Saei Ghare Naz, Akram Sanagoo, Faezeh Kiani, Fatemeh Sayehmiri, Kourosh Sayehmiri, Ali Hasanpour Dehkordi

Abstract

Breast cancer (BC) is responsible for a large proportion of incidence of cancer in the world. Identifying the risk factors contributing to the incidence of BC is crucial to find efficient preventive and management strategies for this disease. Several studies have examined Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), and Nickel (Ni) as risk factors for BC. The present study aimed at studying the link between As, Cd, and Ni concentrations and BC by using a meta-analysis. All case-control studies addressing the relationship between As, Cd, and Ni concentrations with BC were identified through electronic search databases (Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library). The relevant data obtained from these papers were analyzed by a random-effects model. The heterogeneity of studies was secured by using I2 index. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to examine publication bias. In the present study, due to different measurement methods used for measuring As, Cd, and Ni, the concentration of these elements was measured in various subgroups (1: plasma, 2: breast tissue, and 3: scalp hair and nail) of individuals with BC and healthy subjects. The overall integration of data from the 3 groups led to the conclusion that there was a significant difference in Cd and Ni statuses between healthy and BC patients; the standard mean difference was 2.65 (95% CI: 1.57-3.73; P=0.000) and 2.06 (95% CI: 1.20-3.32; P=0.000), respectively. Whereas, there was no significant statistical difference in As status between healthy subjects and BC patients; the standard mean difference between them being 0.52 (95% CI: -0.12-1.16; P=0.114). The present study indicates that there is a direct and positive association between Cd and Ni concentrations and BC risk. It is a warning to health care providers and policy makers to find viable solutions and take requisite measures to reduce BC risk in the society.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,278,043
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#314
of 2,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,198
of 450,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#10
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,067 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 450,901 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.