↓ Skip to main content

Stroke risk among menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers in the United States: Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

Overview of attention for article published in Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology: RTP, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Stroke risk among menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers in the United States: Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
Published in
Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology: RTP, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.01.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cynthia Van Landingham, William Fuller, Greg Mariano, Kristin Marano, Geoffrey Curtin, Sandra I. Sulsky

Abstract

Though available evidence is relatively consistent in showing no additional health effects among smokers due to menthol in cigarettes, two studies reported conflicting results for stroke risk using different subsets of NHANES data. We investigated reasons for the differences in these reports by analyzing NHANES cycles conducted between 1999 and 2012, combined and in subsets. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from three different survey logistic regression models compare risk of reported stroke diagnoses among menthol and non-menthol cigarette smokers. Depending on timeframe, about 1150 to 8000 U.S. adults (aged ≥ 20 years) who smoked on ≥ 1 of the last 30 days had complete data for cigarette type and all covariates included in each model. Results were not much affected by which covariates were included in the models, but depended strongly on the NHANES cycles included in the analysis. Using NHANES 1999-2012 data combined, AORs and 95% CIs for stroke comparing menthol with non-menthol cigarette smokers were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.65, 1.37), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.59, 1.23) or 0.86 (95% CI: 0.59, 1.25). Collectively, findings illustrate the need for fully reporting research and analytical methods, especially when analyses are meant to develop evidence intended for regulatory decision-making.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 32%
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 22 March 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology: RTP
#1,721
of 2,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,926
of 424,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology: RTP
#24
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 424,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.