Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24474847›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of women's health2014

Prescribing menopausal hormone therapy: an evidence-based approach.

Richa Sood, Stephanie S Faubion, Carol L Kuhle, Jacqueline M Thielen, Lynne T Shuster

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of women's health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Fatty Acid Profile of Postmenopausal Women Receiving, and Not Receiving, Hormone Replacement Therapy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Richa SoodDivision of General Internal Medicine, Women's Health Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Stephanie S FaubionDivision of General Internal Medicine, Women's Health Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Carol L KuhleDivision of General Internal Medicine, Women's Health Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jacqueline M ThielenDivision of General Internal Medicine, Women's Health Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Lynne T ShusterDivision of General Internal Medicine, Women's Health Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The constantly changing landscape regarding menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has been challenging for providers caring for menopausal women. After a decade of fear and uncertainty regarding MHT, reanalysis of the Women's Health Initiative data and the results of recent studies have provided some clarity regarding the balance of risks and benefits of systemic MHT. Age and years since menopause are now known to be important variables affecting the benefit-risk profile. For symptomatic menopausal women who are under 60 years of age or within 10 years of menopause, the benefits of MHT generally outweigh the risks. Systemic MHT initiated early in menopause appears to slow the progression of atherosclerotic disease, thereby reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. During this window of opportunity, MHT might also provide protection against cognitive decline. In older women and women more than 10 years past menopause, the risk-benefit balance of MHT is less favorable, particularly with regard to cardiovascular risk and cognitive impairment. For women entering menopause prematurely (<40 years), MHT ameliorates the risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and cognitive decline. Nonoral administration of estrogen offers advantages due to the lack of first-pass hepatic metabolism, which in turn avoids the increased hepatic synthesis of clotting proteins, C-reactive protein, triglycerides, and sex hormone-binding globulin. The duration of combined MHT use is ideally limited to less than 5 years because of the known increase in breast cancer risk after 3-5 years of use. Limitations to use of estrogen only MHT are less clear, since breast cancer risk does not appear to increase with use of estrogen alone. For women under the age of 60 years, or within 10 years of onset of natural menopause, MHT for the treatment of bothersome menopausal symptoms poses low risk and is an acceptable option, particularly when nonhormonal management approaches fail.

Indexed as

flushhormone therapyhot flashmenopause

Identifiers

PMID24474847
PMCPMC3897322
OpenAlexW2060689965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.