| Title |
Tooth loss and risk of colorectal cancer: a dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s151028 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peng Ma, Shaojun Dai, Can Jin, Yonggang Yao, Chuanxin Zou |
| Abstract |
Previous studies have indicated that tooth loss is associated with colorectal cancer risk but have presented controversial results. We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis in order to investigate the correlation between tooth loss and colorectal cancer risk. Up to August 2017, six eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed statistically significant association between tooth loss and colorectal cancer (OR =1.08, 95% CI: 1.03-1.15, P<0.001). In addition, we obtained the best fit at an inflection point of every two tooth loss in piecewise regression analysis, and the summary relative risk (RR) of colorectal cancer for an increase of every two tooth loss was 1.06 (95% CI: 1.02-1.11, P<0.001). Furthermore, tooth loss was significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk in Caucasia (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.09-1.28; P<0.001) and Asia (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.10; P<0.001). Moreover, tooth loss was significantly associated with a higher risk of colon cancer (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02-1.17; P<0.001) and rectal cancer (RR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.01-1.17; P<0.001). Subgroup meta-analyses showed consistency with the primary findings. Considering these promising results, increasing tooth loss may be harmful to our health, and maintenance of our oral health is essential. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 28% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
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 22 May 2023.
All research outputs
#7,856,238
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#415
of 2,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,716
of 345,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#11
of 90 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 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,967 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 345,373 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.