The sound and the fury: was it all worth it?

The initial report of coronary heart disease (CHD) results from the trial of menopausal hormone therapy within the Women's Health Initiative precipitated substantial surprise and concern in the epidemiology research community over the apparent differences between the trial results and those of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) Vol. 19; no. 6; p. 780
Main Author Hoover, Robert N
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.11.2008
Subjects
Cardiovascular Diseases - etiology
Cardiovascular Diseases - prevention & control
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Estrogen Replacement Therapy - adverse effects
Female
Health Surveys
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Middle Aged
Observation - methods
Odds Ratio
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods
Selection Bias
Time Factors
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:The initial report of coronary heart disease (CHD) results from the trial of menopausal hormone therapy within the Women's Health Initiative precipitated substantial surprise and concern in the epidemiology research community over the apparent differences between the trial results and those of observational studies. What followed was 6 years of discussion and debate, frequently acrimonious, along with intense methodologic and substantive research attempting to reconcile or explain the apparent differences. The results have been an impressive improvement in methods to contrast and combine studies of differing designs, dramatic illustrations of some central epidemiologic principles, insights into likely mechanisms of CHD, and increasing clarity of the public health message about menopausal hormone therapy.
ISSN:1531-5487
DOI:10.1097/EDE.0b013e318188e21d