Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20566620›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2010

Postmenopausal hormone therapy: an Endocrine Society scientific statement.

Richard J Santen, D Craig Allred, Stacy P Ardoin, David F Archer, Norman Boyd, Glenn D Braunstein, Henry G Burger, Graham A Colditz, Susan R Davis, Marco Gambacciani and 16 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03740009 (Effects of a Tissue Selective Estrogen Complex), which is not on this map. Cited by 178 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
178citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03740009 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Effects of a Tissue Selective Estrogen Complex (TESC) on Depression and the Neural Reward System in the Perimenopause

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillRan2019 to 2021Enrolled20ConditionsPerimenopausal Disorder, DepressionArmsBazedoxifene/Conjugated Estrogen
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

178 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of Hormonal and Nonhormonal Approaches to Vaginal Atrophy and Sexual Dysfunctions in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Hormone Replacement Therapy and Risk of Breast Cancer in Korean Women: A Quantitative Systematic Review.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Menopause and suicide: A systematic review.Women's health (London, England)
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Estrogen plus progestin and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2012
    Trial
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Menopause and gastrointestinal health and disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025
    Review

118 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Richard J SantenDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908, USA. RJS5Y@VIRGINIA.EDU
D Craig Allred
Stacy P Ardoin
David F Archer
Norman Boyd
Glenn D Braunstein
Henry G Burger
Graham A Colditz
Susan R Davis
Marco Gambacciani
Barbara A Gower
Victor W Henderson
Wael N Jarjour
Richard H Karas
Michael Kleerekoper
Roger A Lobo
JoAnn E Manson
Jo Marsden
Kathryn A Martin
Lisa Martin
JoAnn V Pinkerton
David R Rubinow
Helena Teede
Diane M Thiboutot
Wulf H Utian
Endocrine Society

Funding

UVA Digestive Health Research CenterP30DK067629 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI COMINELLI, FABIO · 2004 to 2008
$5.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK067629
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOur objective was to provide a scholarly review of the published literature on menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT), make scientifically valid assessments of the available data, and grade the level of evidence available for each clinically important endpoint. PARTICIPANTS IN DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT: The 12-member Scientific Statement Task Force of The Endocrine Society selected the leader of the statement development group (R.J.S.) and suggested experts with expertise in specific areas. In conjunction with the Task Force, lead authors (n = 25) and peer reviewers (n = 14) for each specific topic were selected. All discussions regarding content and grading of evidence occurred via teleconference or electronic and written correspondence. No funding was provided to any expert or peer reviewer, and all participants volunteered their time to prepare this Scientific Statement. EVIDENCE: Each expert conducted extensive literature searches of case control, cohort, and randomized controlled trials as well as meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, and Position Statements from other professional societies in order to compile and evaluate available evidence. No unpublished data were used to draw conclusions from the evidence. CONSENSUS PROCESS: A consensus was reached after several iterations. Each topic was considered separately, and a consensus was achieved as to content to be included and conclusions reached between the primary author and the peer reviewer specific to that topic. In a separate iteration, the quality of evidence was judged using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system in common use by The Endocrine Society for preparing clinical guidelines. The final iteration involved responses to four levels of additional review: 1) general comments offered by each of the 25 authors; 2) comments of the individual Task Force members; 3) critiques by the reviewers of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism; and 4) suggestions offered by the Council and members of The Endocrine Society. The lead author compiled each individual topic into a coherent document and finalized the content for the final Statement. The writing process was analogous to preparation of a multiauthored textbook with input from individual authors and the textbook editors.

conclusionsThe major conclusions related to the overall benefits and risks of MHT expressed as the number of women per 1000 taking MHT for 5 yr who would experience benefit or harm. Primary areas of benefit included relief of hot flashes and symptoms of urogenital atrophy and prevention of fractures and diabetes. Risks included venothrombotic episodes, stroke, and cholecystitis. In the subgroup of women starting MHT between ages 50 and 59 or less than 10 yr after onset of menopause, congruent trends suggested additional benefit including reduction of overall mortality and coronary artery disease. In this subgroup, estrogen plus some progestogens increased the risk of breast cancer, whereas estrogen alone did not. Beneficial effects on colorectal and endometrial cancer and harmful effects on ovarian cancer occurred but affected only a small number of women. Data from the various Women's Health Initiative studies, which involved women of average age 63, cannot be appropriately applied to calculate risks and benefits of MHT in women starting shortly after menopause. At the present time, assessments of benefit and risk in these younger women are based on lower levels of evidence.

Indexed as

EndocrinologyEstrogen Replacement TherapyFemaleHumansRisk AssessmentSocieties, Medical

Identifiers

PMID20566620
PMCPMC6287288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.