ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne1999
Hormone replacement therapy: a survey of Ontario physicians' prescribing practices.
Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough much has been written about hormone replacement therapy (HRT), there are few clearcut recommendations on its use. The purpose of this study was to determine Ontario physicians' patterns of and reasons for prescribing HRT, their use of pretreatment investigations and their surveillance of HRT users, and to determine whether physicians' reported practice is consistent with existing recommendations.
methodsA self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a nonproportional stratified sample of 327 Ontario physicians (23.9% gynecologists, 76.1% general practitioners/family physicians [GP/FPs]). Outcome measures were ranking of reasons for prescribing HRT, nature of preliminary testing, regimens prescribed, duration of HRT and frequency of follow-up.
resultsThe response rate was 60.9% overall (70.9% of the gynecologists, 58.3% of the GP/FPs). Prevention of osteoporosis was reported by 97.4% as an important or very important reason for prescribing HRT; prevention of coronary artery disease was important or very important for 89.3%. When considering whether or not to prescribe HRT, 97.3% stated that breast cancer was an important or very important factor. When presented with hypothetical cases, 97.0% stated that they would prescribe combined estrogen-progestin for a symptomatic woman with an intact uterus; 13.6% stated that they would do so for a woman with no uterus. Most reported that they would prescribe HRT for 12 or more years (73.3%) and would follow up patients every 1 to 2 years (70.6%).
interpretationDespite controversy about HRT in the published literature, the Ontario physicians surveyed reported similar reasons and patterns of prescribing, pretreatment investigations, and surveillance of postmenopausal women using HRT. These results suggest that Ontario physicians' knowledge about HRT is consistent with recommendations in the published literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10513275PMC1230617W2106458452What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.