ArticlePloS one2021
Menopausal hormone therapy: Characterising users in an Australian national cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical evidence on integrated Chinese-Western medicine for perimenopausal syndrome.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Menopausal Hormone Therapy Use Among Postmenopausal Women.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Geographic Variation in Osteoporosis Treatment in Postmenopausal Women: A 15-Year Longitudinal Analysis.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2024Article
- Exogenous female sex steroid hormones and new-onset asthma in women: a matched case-control study.BMC medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is effective for menopausal symptoms, however, its use is also associated with risks of serious health conditions including breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer, stroke and venous thromboembolism. MHT-related health risks increase with longer durations of use. In Australia, while overall MHT use fell when risk-related findings were published in 2002, a significant number of women continue using MHT long-term. We aimed to examine socio-demographic, health-related and lifestyle characteristics in relation to post-2002 MHT use, and to compare use for <5 and ≥5 years. Data from 1,561 participants from an Australian, national, cross-sectional survey of women aged 50-69 in 2013 were analysed. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using logistic regression for characteristics related to overall MHT use post-2002 and multinomial logistic regression for associations between MHT duration of use [never/<5 years/≥5 years] and personal characteristics, adjusting for sociodemographic, reproductive, health and lifestyle factors. Post-2002 MHT use was associated with increasing age (p-trend<0.001), hysterectomy versus no hysterectomy (OR:2.55, 95%CI = 1.85-3.51), bilateral oophorectomy vs no oophorectomy (OR:1.66, 95%CI = 1.09-2.53), and ever- versus never-use of therapies other than MHT for menopausal symptoms (OR:1.93, 95%CI = 1.48-2.57). Women with prior breast cancer (OR:0.35, 95%CI = 0.17-0.74) and with more children (p-trend = 0.034) were less likely than other women to use MHT. Prior hysterectomy was more strongly associated with MHT use for ≥5 years than for <5 years (p = 0.004). Ever-use of non-MHT menopausal therapies was associated with MHT use for <5 years but not with longer-term use (p = 0.004). This study reinforces the need for MHT users and their clinicians to re-evaluate continued MHT use on an ongoing basis.
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.