ArticleBMC women's health2007
Differences in menopausal hormone therapy use among women in Germany between 1998 and 2003.
Article in BMC women's health, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postmenopausal hormone therapy and mortality before and after the Women's Health Initiative study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Changes in mean serum lipids among adults in Germany: results from National Health Surveys 1997-99 and 2008-11.BMC public health · 2016Article
- Relationship between bone mineral density, its associated physiological factors, and tooth loss in postmenopausal Korean women.BMC women's health · 2015Article
- Comorbidity of overweight and obesity in a nationally representative sample of German adults aged 18-79 years.BMC public health · 2012Article
- Trends in menopausal hormone therapy use of US office-based physicians, 2000-2009.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2011Article
- New evidence rekindles the hormone therapy debate.The journal of family planning and reproductive health care · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo examine the differences in menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use and user profiles among women in Germany before and after the communication of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial and other study results concerning the risks and benefits of MHT.
methodsCurrent MHT use was ascertained in two periodic German national health surveys conducted in 1997-1999 and 2003-2004. MHT prevalence and user profiles were assessed within each survey. The association of the survey period (2003-2004 vs. 1997-1999) with current MHT use was analyzed in weighted multivariable logistic regression (MLR) models, pooling data from both surveys.
resultsThe overall prevalence of current MHT use decreased by 40.2% from 16.9% of the sample in 1997-1999 to 10.1% in 2003-2004. The difference in prevalence between surveys varied with age decade with the smallest decreases among women 60-69 years of age (20.3% vs. 18.5%), compared to women of younger and older age groups (40-49: 10.7% vs. 3.9%; 50-59: 36.3% vs. 21.3%; 70-79: 5.7% vs. 3.2%). Variables independently associated with higher current MHT use in both health surveys included age category (curvilinear relationship with highest use among women 50-59 years) and residence in West vs. East Germany. A higher social status, lower body mass index, and more health-conscious behaviour were significantly associated with higher current MHT use in the 1997-1999 survey, but these associations were not found in the later survey. MLR analyses confirmed a significant decline in MHT use between the 1997-1999 and 2003-2004 surveys, however, the effect was modified by social status and was not significant among lowest social-status women.
conclusionCurrent MHT use considerably declined among women in Germany between the pre- and post-WHI era. A convergence of current MHT use among women of higher social status with pre-existing patterns of use among lower social-status women suggests that MHT in Germany is now less likely to be used for health promotion.
Indexed as
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.