ArticleScientific reports2023
Postmenopausal hormone therapy and mortality before and after the Women's Health Initiative study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brazilian Guideline on Menopausal Cardiovascular Health - 2024.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Guideline
- The 2017 Women's Health Initiative study and use of hormone therapy: an emulated repeated cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Brazilian Guideline on Menopausal Cardiovascular Health - 2024.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Weighing risks and benefits of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) has proven a balancing act. We aimed to investigate the association between HT and mortality before and after the 2002 publication from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study. This publication found that the risk of using HT outweighted the benefits, and thus it caused a marked reduction in systemic HT user prevalence. The 2002 WHI publication may also have caused a change in the subsequent HT user profile, as HT is no longer recommended in the prevention of chronic diseases. This cohort study included two populations followed from 1995: A 5% random sample of female singletons from the Danish general population (n = 52,388) and a sample of Danish female twins (n = 15,261). HT use was evaluated in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. The association between HT, education, and mortality was investigated and controlled for potential unobserved familial confounding in a within-pair analysis. Singletons aged 56-75 using systemic HT in 2000 had a lower mortality compared to non-users (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.89). In 2005, the mortality was like that of the background population for this age group (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.11). Recently postmenopausal twins showed a similar tendency. Systemic HT users, who had switched to local HT by 2005, had a substantially lower mortality than non-users (HR ranging from 0.42 to 0.67 depending on age group). In conclusion, we found that the prevalence of systemic HT use declined after 2002, and systemic HT users' mortality changed from lower before 2002 to similar to that of the background population after 2002. This indicates that the healthiest users decided to either drop systemic HT or switcted to local HT, as recommendations changed following the WHI publication.
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.