ArticleThe journal of sexual medicine2014
Testosterone, cardiovascular risk, and hormonophobia.
Article in The journal of sexual medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Late-onset hypogonadism.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2017Review
- Improvement of endothelial function following initiation of testosterone replacement therapy.Translational andrology and urology · 2016Article
- Erectile dysfunction.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2016Review
- The practical management of testosterone deficiency in men.Nature reviews. Urology · 2015Review
- Review of health risks of low testosterone and testosterone administration.World journal of clinical cases · 2015Review
- Myocardial Infarction and Stroke Risk in Young Healthy Men Treated with Injectable Testosterone.International journal of endocrinology · 2015Article
- PADAMboom!!!Central European journal of urology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA public outcry against testosterone (T) therapy has suddenly occurred based on two reports suggesting treatment was associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risks.
aimTo analyze scientific and social bases for concerns regarding T therapy.
methodsAnalysis of recent articles regarding CV risks with T and comparison with events surrounding publication of results of the Women's Health Initiative in 2002.
resultsIn the first study, the percentage of individuals with an adverse event was lower by half in men who received T compared with untreated men (10.1% vs. 21.2%). However, an opposite conclusion was reached via complex statistics. The second study reported minor increased rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) up to 90 days after receiving a T prescription compared with the prior 12 months. However, there was no control group, so it is unknown whether this MI rate was increased, reduced, or unchanged compared with untreated men. Neither study provided substantive evidence of risk, yet these were lauded as proof of dangers, despite a substantial literature to the contrary. Similar events followed the publication of the Women's Health Initiative in 2002 when a media frenzy over increased risks with female hormone replacement therapy obscured the fact that the reported excess risk was clinically meaningless, at two events per 1,000 person-years. Stakeholders driving concerns regarding hormone risks are unlikely to be clinicians with real-world patient experience.
conclusionsThe use of weak studies as proof of danger indicates that cultural (i.e., nonscientific) forces are at play. Negative media stories touting T's risks appear fueled by antipharma sentiment, anger against aggressive marketing, and antisexuality. This stance is best described as "hormonophobia." As history shows, evidence alone may be insufficient to alter a public narrative. The true outrage is that social forces and hysteria have combined to deprive men of a useful treatment without regard for medical science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24787518What 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.