ArticleMenopause (New York, N.Y.)2016
Prescribing of FDA-approved and compounded hormone therapy differs by specialty.
Article in Menopause (New York, N.Y.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Psychiatric Manifestations in a Postmenopausal Woman Caused by Prolonged Testosterone Pellet Therapy.O&G open · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Risk/Benefit Profile of MHT.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Review
- WISDOM survey: attitudes and behaviors of physicians toward vulvar and vaginal atrophy (VVA) treatment in women including those with breast cancer history.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the prescribing patterns of general practitioners (GPs), obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs), and wellness physicians (WPs) of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) for both compounded (CHT) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products, using a survey of US physicians.
methodsNine thousand one US physicians were invited to participate in a survey to report on their HT-prescribing patterns. Physicians were eligible if they prescribed HT for at least six patients per month.
resultsThe survey was completed by 440 eligible physicians (893 responded of 9,001 invited) including 171 GPs, 170 OB/GYNs, and 84 WPs. Physicians prescribed HT for 15% to 30% of their female patients, with WPs numerically most likely to prescribe HT. Menopausal symptoms were the leading reason for HT prescriptions among all specialties. WPs seemed more likely to prescribe HT for general/cardiovascular health (28%), and for shorter durations, than other specialties. WPs prescribed proportionally more compounded (vs FDA-approved) estrogens/progestogens than GPs or OB/GYNs, but OB/GYNs seemed to prescribe more compounded dehydroepiandrosterone and testosterone (prescribed alone) than did others. OB/GYNs seemed least likely to consider CHT being more safe or effective than FDA-approved HT. Symptom relief was the main determinant of efficacy for all specialties; WPs also used blood (61%) or saliva testing (25%) for dose adjustment.
conclusionsAlthough all physician specialties surveyed prescribed HT, differences in prescribing CHT versus FDA-approved formulations by medical specialty/practice seemed to exist. Of those surveyed, OB/GYNs and GPs prescribed proportionally more FDA-approved HT, whereas WPs, similarly, prescribed more CHT. More discussion is needed concerning physicians' decisions to prescribe CHT versus FDA-approved formulations.
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.