Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39331372›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2024

Menopausal Hormone Therapy Use Among Postmenopausal Women.

Lin Yang, Adetunji T Toriola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Social Media and Supplements for Menopausal Symptoms: A Content Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. The Neurology of Menopause.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. The future of HRT/MHT and Alzheimer's disease risk, onset and progression.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026
    Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Lin YangDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Cancer Research and Analytics, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Adetunji T ToriolaDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is the treatment of choice for symptoms of menopause. However, its adoption is hindered by the risk-benefit trade-off in relation to acute and chronic diseases. Objective: To evaluate trends in and correlates of MHT use among postmenopausal women in the US from 1999 to March 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional analysis of MHT use used data from the nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Participants included noninstitutionalized US postmenopausal women from 10 NHANES study cycles (1999-2000 to 2017-March 2020 [pre-COVID-19 pandemic]). Data were analyzed from December 2023 to April 2024. Exposures: NHANES study cycle. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of MHT use was extracted from the prescription medication data collected during NHANES household interviews. MHT formulations were determined by hormone type. Results: Data on 13 048 US postmenopausal women (47.1% ≥65 years old) were analyzed. From 1999 to 2020, the prevalence of MHT use decreased among women of all age groups, from 26.9% (95% CI, 22.6%-31.7%) in 1999 to 4.7% (95% CI, 3.4%-6.5%) in 2020. Until 2002, MHT use was highest among women aged 52 to 65 years, but since 2005, MHT use has been highest among women younger than 52 years. MHT use decreased by 23.5% (95% CI, 11.4%-35.6%), 31.4% (95% CI, 23.4%-39.5%), and 10.6% (95% CI, 6.3%-14.8%) for women younger than 52 years, 52 years to younger than 65 years, and 65 years and older, respectively. Prevalence of MHT use decreased from 13.8% (95% CI, 8.5%-21.7%) to 2.6% (95% CI, 1.5%-4.6%) for Hispanic women, 11.9% (95% CI, 8.5%-16.3%) to 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%) for non-Hispanic Black women, and 31.4% (95% CI, 27.1%-36.1%) to 5.8% (95% CI, 4.1%-8.2%) for non-Hispanic White women. Non-Hispanic White women consistently had the highest prevalence of MHT use. Estrogen-only formulation accounted for more than 50% of the MHT for most study periods. The prevalence of MHT use varied by family income-to-poverty ratio, health insurance coverage in all racial and ethnic groups, weight, and smoking status among non-Hispanic White women, as well as by education attainment among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional study show that over the past 2 decades, MHT use declined among US postmenopausal women of all age and racial and ethnic groups. Women of racial and ethnic minority groups had lower prevalence of MHT use compared to non-Hispanic White women.

Indexed as

Estrogen Replacement TherapyNutrition SurveysPostmenopauseAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39331372
PMCPMC11437377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.