ArticleNuclear receptor signaling2006
A critique of Women's Health Initiative Studies (2002-2006).
Article in Nuclear receptor signaling, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Menopause Hormone Therapy in Women With Cardiovascular Risk Factors or Established Ischemic Heart Disease: A Joint FIGO and WHF Position Paper.Global heart · 2026Review
- Article
- Cerebrovascular reactivity after cessation of menopausal hormone treatment.Climacteric : the journal of the International Menopause Society · 2019Article
- Sex hormonal regulation and hormesis in aging and longevity: role of vitagenes.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2014Article
- Review
- Estrogen neuroprotection and the critical period hypothesis.Frontiers in neuroendocrinology · 2012Review
- Vascular actions of estrogens: functional implications.Pharmacological reviews · 2008Review
- Proliferation of the superficial epithelium of ovaries in senile female rats following oral administration of conjugated equine estrogens.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2008Article
- Neurotrophic and neuroprotective actions of estrogen: basic mechanisms and clinical implications.Steroids · 2007Review
- Women on Hormone Therapy with Ischemic Stroke, Effects on Deficits and Recovery.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery & psychiatry researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Women's Health Initiative Studies (WHI) were designed to examine the effects of estrogen and progestin (E+P; Prempro) and estrogen alone (Premarin) in post-menopausal women. The authors of the WHI studies and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) concluded that E+P treatment increased the risks of coronary heart disease, invasive breast cancer, stroke and venous thromboembolism. The following paper contains a reevaluation of these studies based on the graphic analysis of their tabulated data. In contrast to the conclusions reached by the WHI and the NHLBI, I conclude that treatment of post-menopausal women with estrogen and progestin (Prempro) does not increase the risks of cardiovascular disease, invasive breast cancer, stroke or venous thromboembolism. I also disagree with the claim that an increased risk of stroke existed in women treated with estrogen alone.
Identifiers
What 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.