help button home button Endocrine Society Endocrine Reviews JCEM Call for Nominations for EIC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wells, G.
Right arrow Articles by Cranney, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wells, G.
Right arrow Articles by Cranney, A.
Endocrine Reviews 23 (4): 529-539
Copyright © 2002 by The Endocrine Society

V. Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Hormone Replacement Therapy in Treating and Preventing Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women

George Wells, Peter Tugwell, Beverley Shea, Gordon Guyatt, Joan Peterson, Nicole Zytaruk, Vivian Robinson, David Henry, Diane O’Connell and Ann Cranney , the osteoporosis methodology group, and the Osteoporosis Research Advisory Group


   A. Abstract
Top
 A. Abstract
B. Introduction
 C. Methods
 D. Results
 E. Discussion
 F. Bibliography
 
Objective: To review the effect of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on bone density and fractures in postmenopausal women.

Data Source: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1966 to 1999, the Cochrane Controlled Register, citations of relevant articles, and proceedings of international meetings for eligible randomized controlled trials. We contacted osteoporosis investigators to identify additional studies, and primary authors for unpublished data.

Study Selection: We included 57 studies that randomized postmenopausal women to HRT or a control (placebo or calcium/vitamin D) and were of at least 1 yr in duration. Seven of these studies reported fractures.

Data Abstraction: For each study, three independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and abstracted the data.

Data Synthesis: HRT showed a trend toward reduced incidence of vertebral fractures [relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41–1.07; 5 trials] and nonvertebral fractures (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71–1.08; 6 trials). HRT had a consistent effect on bone mineral density (BMD) at all sites. The difference between HRT and control in the percent change in bone density at 2 yr was 6.76 (5.83, 7.89; 21 trials) at the lumbar spine and 4.53 (3.68, 5.36; 14 trials) and 4.12 (3.45, 4.80; 9 trials) at the forearm and femoral neck, respectively.

Conclusions: HRT has a consistent, favorable and large effect on bone density at all sites. The data show a nonsignificant trend toward a reduced incidence in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures.


   B. Introduction
Top
 A. Abstract
 B. Introduction
C. Methods
 D. Results
 E. Discussion
 F. Bibliography
 
ESTROGEN DEFICIENCY IS considered to be a major factor predisposing to osteoporosis. For years, experts have recommended HRT as a first-line therapy to prevent trabecular and cortical bone loss in postmenopausal women. Randomized trials provide strong evidence that HRT prevents bone loss at both trabecular and cortical sites. However, the evidence for hip-fracture reduction comes primarily from case-control and cohort studies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) (6) evaluated the efficacy of HRT on the secondary prevention of heart disease; the investigators included fractures as a secondary endpoint. Although the women in this trial were not osteoporotic, there was no difference in hip fractures between those on estrogen compared with those on placebo. Recent recommendations have challenged the efficacy of HRT in the reduction of hip fractures, given the development of other therapeutic medications for osteoporosis.

In 1998, O’Connell et al. (7) published a systematic review of hormone replacement including trials from 1977 to 1995. This systematic review met major methodological criteria including a comprehensive search strategy and explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. The authors included 37 studies in their review, but only one small trial provided data on vertebral fractures (8).

As part of this series of systematic reviews of osteoporosis therapy, the objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the magnitude of the efficacy of HRT on bone density and fractures.


   C. Methods
Top
 A. Abstract
 B. Introduction
 C. Methods
D. Results
 E. Discussion
 F. Bibliography
 
1. Inclusion criteria.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in postmenopausal women that compared an HRT intervention (estrogen used alone or estrogen opposed by a progestin) with a placebo. The HRT could be given in conjunction with a calcium and vitamin D supplement, provided the comparison group received the same supplements. Furthermore, the results had to be reported with a follow-up of at least 1 yr on one or more of the outcomes of interest: radiological evidence of fractures of the vertebra, wrist, or hip; or BMD measured in grams per centimeter or grams per centimeter squared by single-photon absorptiometry, dual-photon absorptiometry, dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), or quantitative computed tomography (QCT) at the lumbar spine, forearm, or femoral neck site. Both prevention and treatment trials were accepted. For this analysis, we applied stringent criteria when classifying trials as treatment, with treatment referring to studies that included women with prevalent fractures at baseline. This is in contrast with other reviews, which considered studies that restricted their population to women whose mean bone density T-score was at least 2 SD values below peak bone mass as treatment studies; and when baseline bone density was unavailable, classified studies as treatment if the prevalence of vertebral fracture at baseline was greater than 20%; or, when fracture prevalence was unavailable, if the average age was above 62.

2. Search strategy.
The Cochrane Collaborative approach for identifying RCTs as described by Dickersin et al. (9) and modified for the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group guided our literature search. Text words included: bone density, postmenopausal, fractures, hormone replacement, estrogen, estrogen synthetic, progestational hormones. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1966 to 1999, the Cochrane Controlled Register, citations of relevant articles, and proceedings of international meetings. We contacted osteoporosis investigators to identify additional studies, and primary authors for unpublished data. Two reviewers examined each title generated from the search and identified potentially eligible articles for which we obtained the abstracts (B.S., J.P.).

3. Methodological quality.
A validated quality-assessment tool (10) was used to rate each eligible study. The scale evaluated the method and concealment of randomization, whether the patients and those measuring outcome were blind to the allocation of the intervention, and the extent and accounting of dropouts and withdrawals from the study. Interobserver agreement on the rating was measured using the {kappa} coefficient of agreement (with greater than 0.60 taken as an indication of substantial strength of agreement).

4. Data collection.
Two independent reviewers (B.S., J.P.) abstracted all information and data using standardized data abstraction forms, and a third reviewer (G.W.) verified the data. Abstraction included information on pertinent methodological aspects of the study design, characteristics of the participants, the specific estrogen and progestin preparations used, and the outcomes assessed. In particular, the mean percent change from baseline and SD values for bone density and the number of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were abstracted.

5. Analysis.
For the analysis of bone density, the weighted mean difference in bone density between HRT and control groups was calculated using the difference in the percent change from baseline in the treatment and placebo groups and their associated SD values. For the analysis of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, the relative risk of fracture was calculated. Fleiss (11) has described the methods we used for pooling the results. For the pooled results, site-specific 95% CIs were calculated for bone density (lumbar spine, forearm, femoral neck) and fractures (vertebral, nonvertebral).

Data were initially pooled broadly across prevention and treatment trials, regardless of the estrogen dose, the type of preparation, or whether or not the estrogen was opposed. We conducted subgroup analysis for: 1) prevention vs. treatment; 2) opposed vs. unopposed estrogen; 3) estrogen dose (low-dose estrogen was equivalent to 0.3 mg Premarin, medium dose to 0.625 mg, and high dose 0.9 mg); and 4) type of estrogen preparation (transdermal, oral estradiol, and oral CEE/Premarin). When pooling results from the lumbar spine, we pooled dual-photon absorptiometry and DXA but not QCT. The precision error of QCT is not as good as DXA of the posterior/anterior spine. QCT provides a measure of volumetric density, and higher rates of bone change have been reported with QCT. We tested for homogeneity using a {chi}2 test procedure (11) and assessed publication bias using funnel plots.


   D. Results
Top
 A. Abstract
 B. Introduction
 C. Methods
 D. Results
E. Discussion
 F. Bibliography
 
1. Search results.
Electronic and hand-searching resulted in a total of 310 published papers that addressed the relationship between HRT and BMD or fracture incidence. There were 62 RCTs fulfilling the inclusion criteria and comparing an estrogen preparation to a control either being placebo or calcium/vitamin D (6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71). Four trials were excluded: one trial used a progesterone agent only (67), and three trials used tibolone (35, 47, 50). A later report (71) of an included trial (42) was not used because the fracture data were not separately reported as vertebral and nonvertebral. Of the 57 RCTs included in this review, 47 were prevention and 10 were treatment trials.

Table 1Go summarizes the characteristics of the 57 studies. Thirty-nine studies were published in 1990 or later, and of these studies, 17 were published after 1995. The estrogen and progestin preparations were diverse, as is evident from Table 1Go. The blinding status of the trials varied with 31 blinded, 22 not blinded, and 4 with unclear status. Although the follow-up ranged from 1 to 5 yr, most trials had a 1- or 2-yr study duration.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. HRT trial characteristics

 
2. Fractures.
We reviewed seven studies with estrogen that included data on fractures (Table 2Go). For all studies, with the exception of HERS, all participants including placebo/control subjects were either supplemented with calcium or encouraged to increase their dietary intakes. Four of the five studies provided similar results of a positive effect of HRT on vertebral fractures, but with wide CIs and statistically nonsignificant results (8, 37, 69, 70). The test for heterogeneity was not statistically significant. The resulting pooled estimate indicates a 34% reduction in RR in vertebral fractures (95% CI 0.41–1.07; Fig. 1Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. RR of fracture after treatment with HRT

 


View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. RR of vertebral fracture after treatment with HRT.

 
Six studies measured the effect of HRT on nonvertebral fractures (6, 37, 42, 44, 69, 70). The study by Komulainen et al. (44) assigned 464 women to 1 of 4 groups: HRT, vitamin D alone, HRT and vitamin D, or placebo, and the pooled results of the two HRT groups compared with the combined vitamin D alone and placebo group showed a statistically significant relative risk reduction for nonvertebral fractures for HRT. For our analysis, only the HRT and placebo groups were used, with the result barely reaching significance. Three of the other studies had a RR reduction that was not statistically significant, and the other had a RR of 1.0. Although the individual study results were somewhat disparate, the test for heterogeneity was not statistically significant. The pooling of the study results indicates a reduction in the RR of 13% in nonvertebral fractures (95% CI 0.71–1.08; Fig. 2Go). Too few studies were available with vertebral and nonvertebral fracture outcomes to properly interpret the funnel plots for assessing publication bias.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. RR of nonvertebral fracture after treatment with HRT.

 
3. Bone density.
Combining the results for all prevention and treatment trials, for both opposed and unopposed estrogen, the pooled percent change in bone density was statistically significant in favor of HRT at all measurement sites (Fig. 3Go). After 1 yr, the percent change in bone density was 5.4% better at the lumbar spine with HRT and 3.0% and 2.5% better at the forearm and femoral neck, respectively. After 2 yr of treatment, the percent change in favor of HRT increased by about 1.5% at all sites with differences of 6.8%, 4.5%, and 4.1% for the lumbar spine, forearm, and femoral neck, respectively. There was no suggestion of publication bias from the funnel plots.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Weighted mean difference in percent change in bone density after treatment with HRT.

 
4. Subgroup analysis
a. Prevention vs. treatment.
When we considered the prevention and treatment trials separately, the pooled percent change in bone density was still statistically significantly better with HRT after 1 yr at all measurement sites, and again the effect was largest at the lumbar spine. For prevention after 1 yr, for both opposed and unopposed estrogen, the percent change in bone density was 4.9%, 3.0%, and 2.3% in favor of HRT at the lumbar spine, forearm, and femoral neck, respectively. The effect was greater when considering HRT for treatment with corresponding changes of 7.7%, 3.3%, and 3.5%, although the CIs were much wider than for prevention. At each of the sites, the difference between prevention and treatment was not statistically significant. The results were similar after 2 yr of therapy, with the pooled percent change in bone density significantly better with HRT at all sites for both prevention and treatment (Table 3Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Weighted mean difference in percent change in bone density after treatment with HRT

 
b. Opposed vs. unopposed estrogen.
There were no significant differences when opposed and unopposed estrogen trials were compared at 1 yr. When we considered the opposed and unopposed estrogen trials separately, the pooled percent change in bone density for prevention trials was still statistically significantly better with HRT at all measurement sites and with the largest effect at the lumbar spine. For opposed estrogen, the percent change in bone density was 5.1%, 3.1%, and 2.5% in favor of HRT at the lumbar spine, forearm, and femoral neck, respectively, and for unopposed estrogen the corresponding percent changes were 3.9%, 2.9%, and 2.9%. The effects of HRT were similar but consistently larger, from 1% to 3%, after 2 yr of therapy. The only exception was for unopposed estrogen at the femoral neck, which only showed a moderate increase (Table 3Go). For treatment trials with opposed estrogen, the pooled percent change in bone density was significantly better with HRT at the lumbar spine, with a 7.3% and 5.7% difference after 1 and 2 yr, respectively. Only a few treatment trials were available for assessing unopposed estrogen (Table 3Go).

c. Dose-response effect of estrogen.
When we grouped the doses of estrogen according to low, medium, and high, we found a clear dose-response relationship at each site at 2 yr (Fig. 4Go). For low-dose estrogen (equivalent to 0.3 mg Premarin), the percent change in bone density was 3.9%, 3.1%, and 2.0% in favor of HRT at the lumbar spine, forearm, and femoral neck, respectively. The effect was greater for high-dose estrogen (equivalent to 0.9 mg Premarin), with corresponding changes of 8.0%, 4.5%, and 4.7%. For the lumbar spine and femoral neck, there was a significant difference in the bone density at 2 yr, between the low and high dose of estrogen.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Weighted mean difference in percent change in bone density after treatment with HRT: low dose vs. high dose after 2 yr of therapy.

 
d. Type of estrogen preparation.
When we grouped HRT by estrogen preparation, no differences in the bone density were found. For the lumbar spine, the difference between HRT and control in the percent change in bone density for the different types of estrogen preparations was 5.45 (3.31, 7.59) for transdermal, 5.36 (3.99, 6.75) for oral estradiol, and 5.62 (4.64, 6.60) for oral CEE/Premarin.


   E. Discussion
Top
 A. Abstract
 B. Introduction
 C. Methods
 D. Results
 E. Discussion
F. Bibliography
 
This overview considered the impact of HRT on bone density and fractures. Our data suggest a strong impact of HRT on bone density at both trabecular and cortical sites after 1 and 2 yr of therapy. Furthermore, there appears to be a dose response in bone density with HRT. In particular, for the lumbar spine and femoral neck, there was a significant difference at 2 yr between low-dose estrogen, defined as equivalent to 0.3 mg of Premarin, and high dose, equivalent to 0.9 mg Premarin. We found no significant differences in the strong favorable impact of HRT on bone density at the various sites when investigators studied HRT for prevention or treatment purposes, when they used opposed or unopposed estrogen, or by the type of estrogen therapy (transdermal, oral estradiol or oral CEE/Premarin). Although the results strongly support a large positive effect of HRT on bone density, the duration of the RCTs were short, usually 1 or 2 yr, and longer-term evidence of the continued effect of HRT from such trials is needed.

Although evidence suggests that the risk of fracture is causally associated with BMD (72), there is a paucity of data from RCTs directly addressing the effect of HRT on fractures. Unlike the bisphosphonate studies in which the Food and Drug Administration demanded fracture data, such a demand was lacking for HRT, and so the motivation for fracture data was not the same. The limitations of the published fracture trials must be noted. Torgerson and Bell-Syer (73) reviewed HRT and the prevention of nonvertebral fractures and included 14 published papers on trials that reported fracture data. Of these trials, eight were excluded from this review: two controlled trials for concerns regarding the randomness of the allocation to the study groups (74, 75); two continuation studies of RCTs for concerns regarding selection bias that dramatically devalued the original RCT design (76, 77); one trial that focused on outcomes other than fractures, and the single fracture indicated is done only in the context of patients terminating the study and not as a comprehensive reporting on fractures (78); two trials that did not make a clear distinction of nonvertebral vs. vertebral fractures (79, 80); and one trial that reported fractures and not women with fractures (59). The study by Mosekilde (81) was not published in the timeline for this review. Even among the trials remaining and included in this review, limitations exist; in particular, with discontinuation rates ranging from 8% to 36%.

Torgerson and Bell-Syer (82) also reviewed HRT and the prevention of vertebral fractures and included 10 published papers on trials that reported fracture data. Five of these studies were included in this review. Three trials were excluded: a continuation study of a RCT for concerns regarding selection bias that devalued the original RCT (83); a trial that did not make a clear distinction of nonvertebral vs. vertebral fractures (79); and a trial that reported fractures and not women with fractures (59). Two trials (81, 84) were outside the timeline of this review. Although not always clearly documented, all vertebral fractures were believed to be morphometric.

When we pooled the results from the existing randomized trials, we found a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures of 34% and 13%, respectively. If the study by Mosekilde (81), published outside the timeline of this review, was included, the overall results would not be substantially affected with nonsignificant reductions in the RR of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures of 21% and 16%, respectively. The Torgerson and Bell-Syer reviews yielded significant reductions in the RR of vertebral fractures of 33% (95% CI 0.45–0.98) and nonvertebral fractures of 27% (95% CI 0.56–0.94). Their reviews included a substantial amount of unpublished data and included trials that did not meet the methodological standards set for inclusion in our review. However, the trends in the reduction of the RRs of fractures are in a similar direction, and differences in statistical significance may be an issue of the precision of the reduction estimates due to the sample sizes involved.

Two studies currently in progress will provide needed fracture data: the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Study and a British study, the Women’s International Study of Long-Duration Estrogen after Menopause (WISDOM).

Although this review has focused on the effect of HRT on bone density and fractures, investigators have hypothesized that HRT reduces the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and other cardiovascular disease with increased breast cancer as a possible adverse outcome. Recommendations for HRT as preventive therapy against CHD is based on clinical studies demonstrating beneficial effects on low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein (a) levels. Furthermore, there are extensive prospective and retrospective cohort and case-control data suggesting a reduction in the age-specific incidence of CHD in women. Virtually all epidemiological evidence accumulated and reviewed is from observational studies such as the Barrett-Connor and Grady (85) meta-analysis report. The HERS trial is the only RCT evaluating the effect of HRT on altering the risk of CHD in postmenopausal woman (6). Women with coronary disease were enrolled, and no differential effects of HRT on the occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death, as well as secondary cardiovascular outcomes were observed. A second RCT of conjugated estrogen in postmenopausal women with CHD provides support for the HERS results (80). Also, the recent Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial (WEST) (86) demonstrated that women assigned to estradiol had an increased risk of stroke in comparison to placebo during the initial 6 months. Given these results for secondary prevention in women with established coronary disease, the American Heart Association has included in its current recommendation that "there is insufficient data to suggest that HRT would be initiated for the sole purpose of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease" (87).

Investigators have conducted several reviews of the effect of HRT on breast cancer. In particular, a study published by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (88) assembled and re-analyzed about 90% of the worldwide evidence on the relation between risk of breast cancer and use of HRT. Individual data on 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer from 51 studies in 21 countries were collected. They found that for current users of HRT or those who ceased use within 4 yr previously, the RR of having breast cancer diagnosed was 1.023 for each year of use (95% CI 1.011–1.036).

Historically, long-term HRT for postmenopausal women has attracted considerable attention in the research community and media for its potential in preventing death and disability in women from CHD and osteoporotic fractures. However, the potential role of HRT is currently controversial. The WHI will help clarify the role of HRT for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures, the reduction of CHD, and the increased breast cancer risk (89). The clinical trial component of the WHI is a RCT to evaluate three interventions: low-fat eating pattern, HRT, and calcium/vitamin D supplementation. In particular, HRT may reduce risk of CHD and other cardiovascular disease and secondarily to reduce the risk of hip and other fractures, with increased breast cancer as a possible adverse outcome. The planned completion date for the WHI is 2007.

Emerging information from studies such as the WHI will change the "landscape" of options for older women in the years to come (90), but the results will not be available for several years. For the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, the current evidence indicates that HRT has a consistent effect on bone density at all sites, but has not established a beneficial effect of HRT on fractures, with evidence only showing a trend toward a reduction in fractures.


   Footnotes
 
Abbreviations: BMD, Bone mineral density; CEE, conjugated equine estrogen; CHD, coronary heart disease; CI, confidence interval; DXA, dual x-ray absorptiometry; HERS, Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study; HRT, hormone replacement therapy; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk; QCT, quantitative computed tomography; WHI, Women’s Health Initiative.


   F. Bibliography
Top
 A. Abstract
 B. Introduction
 C. Methods
 D. Results
 E. Discussion
 F. Bibliography
 

  1. Brainsky GA, Lydick E, Epstein R, Fox KM, Hawkes W, Kashner TM, Zimmerman SI, Magaziner J 1997 The economic cost of hip fractures in community-dwelling older adults: a prospective study. J Am Geriatr Soc 45:281–287[Medline]
  2. Cauley JA, Seeley DG, Ensrud K, Ettinger B, Black D, Cummings SR 1995 Estrogen replacement therapy and fractures in older women. Ann Intern Med 122:9–16[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Kiel DP, Baron JA, Anderson JJ, Hannan MT, Felson DT 1992 Smoking eliminates the protective effect of oral estrogens on the risk for hip fracture among women. Ann Intern Med 116:716–721
  4. Maxim P, Ettinger B, Spitainy G 1995 Fracture protection provided by long-term estrogen treatment. Osteoporosis Int 5:23–29[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Naessen T, Persson I, Adami HO, Bergstrom R, Bergkvist L 1990 Hormone replacement therapy and the risk for first hip fracture. A prospective, population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med 113:95–103
  6. Hully S, Grady D, Bush T, Furberg C, Herrington D, Riggs B, Vittinghoff E 1998 Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement study (HERS) Research Group. JAMA 280:605–613[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. O’Connell D, Robertson J, Henry D, Gillespie W 1998 A systematic review of the skeletal effects of estrogen therapy in postmenopausal women. II. An assessment of treatment effects. Climacteric 1:112–123[Medline]
  8. Lufkin EG, Wahner HW, O’Fallon WM, Hodgson SF, Kotowicz MA, Lane AW, Judd HL, Caplan RH, Riggs BL 1992 Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with transdermal estrogen. Ann Intern Med 117:1–9
  9. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C 1994 Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 309:1286–1291[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Jadad A, Moore A, Carrol D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds JM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay DM 1996 Assessing the quality of randomized trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Fleiss JL 1993 The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 2:121–145[Medline]
  12. Abrahamsen B, Bendtzen K, Beck-Nielsen H 1997 Cytokines and T-lymphocyte subsets in healthy post-menopausal women: estrogen retards bone loss without affecting the release of IL-1 or IL-1ra. Bone 20:251–258[Medline]
  13. Adami S, Suppi R, Bertoldo F, Rossini M, Residori M, Maresca V 1989 Transdermal estradiol in the treatment of postmenopausal bone loss. Bone Miner 7:79–86[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Agnusdei K, Civitelli R, Camporeale A, Gennari C 1990 Calcitonin and estrogens. J Endocrinol Invest 13:625–630[Medline]
  15. Agnusdei D, Gennari C, Bufalino L 1995 Prevention of early postmenopausal bone loss using low doses of conjugated estrogens and the non-hormonal, bone-active drug Ipriflavone. Osteoporosis Int 5:462–466[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Aloia JF, Vaswani A, Yeh JK, Ross PL, Flaster E, Dilmanian AF 1994 Calcium supplementation with and without hormone replacement therapy to prevent postmenopausal bone loss. Ann Intern Med 120:97–103[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Cagnacci A, Melis GB, Soldani R, Paoletti AM, Gambacciani M, Spinetti A 1991 Neuroendocrine and clinical effects of transdermal 17ß-estradiol in postmenopausal women. Maturitas 13:283–296[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Castelo-Branco C, Martinez de Osaba MJ, Pons F, Gonzalez-Merlo J 1992 The effect of hormone replacement therapy on postmenopausal bone loss. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 44:131–136[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Castelo-Branco C, Pons F, Gonzalez-Merlo J 1993 Bone mineral density in surgically postmenopausal women receiving hormonal replacement therapy as assessed by dual photon absorptiometry. Maturitas 16:133–137[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Cheng GJ, Liu JL, Zhang Q, Fan W, Ye HF, Wang ZQ, Pan HP 1993 Nylestriol replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. A three-year prospective study. Chin Med J 106:911–916[Medline]
  21. Christiansen C, Christensen MS, Rodbro P, Hagen C, Transbol I 1981 Effect of 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D3 in itself or combined with hormone treatment in preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis. Eur J Clin Invest 11:305–309[Medline]
  22. Christiansen C, Mazess RB, Transbol I, Jensen GF 1981 Factors in response to treatment of early postmenopausal bone loss. Calcif Tissue Int 33:575–581[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Christensen MS, Hagen C, Christiansen C, Transbol I 1982 Dose-response evaluation of cyclic estrogen/gestagen in postmenopausal women: placebo-controlled trial of its gynecologic and metabolic actions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 144:873–879[Medline]
  24. Christiansen C, Riis BJ 1990 17 ß-Estradiol and continuous norethisterone: a unique treatment for established osteoporosis in elderly women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 71:836–841[Abstract]
  25. Civitelli R, Agnusdei D, Nardi P, Zacchei F, Avioli LV, Gennari C 1988 Effects of one-year treatment with estrogens on bone mass, intestinal calcium absorption, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D-1{alpha}-hydroxylase reserve in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 42:77–86[Medline]
  26. Doren M, Reuther G, Minne HW, Schneider HPG 1995 Superior compliance and efficacy of continuous combined oral estrogen-progestogen replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173:1446–1451[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Ettinger B, Genant HK, Steiger P, Madvig P 1992 Low-dosage micronized 17ß-estradiol prevents bone loss in postmenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:479–488[Medline]
  28. Filipponi P, Pedetti M, Fedeli L, Cini L, Palumbo R, Boldrini S, Massoni C, Cristallini S 1995 Cyclical Clodronate is effective in preventing postmenopausal bone loss: a comparative study with transcutaneous hormone replacement therapy. J Bone Miner Res 10:697–703[Medline]
  29. Finn Jensen G, Christiansen C, Transbol I 1982 Treatment of post menopausal osteoporosis. A controlled therapeutic trial comparing oestrogen/gestagen, 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D3 and calcium. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 54:193–195
  30. Gallagher JC, Kable WT, Goldgar D 1991 Effect of progestin therapy on cortical and trabecular bone: comparison with estrogen. Am J Med 90:171–178[Medline]
  31. Gambacciani M, Spinetti A, Taponeco M, Ciaponi M, Cima GP, Teti G, Genazzani A 1995 Prospective evaluation of calcium and estrogen administration on bone mass and metabolism after ovariectomy. Gynecol Endocrinol 9:131–135[Medline]
  32. Gambacciani M, Ciaponi M, Cappagli B, Piaggesi L, Genazzani AR 1997 Effects of combined low dose of the isoflavone derivative ipriflavone and estrogen replacement on bone mineral density and metabolism in postmenopausal women. Maturitas 28:75–81[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Genant HK, Cann CE, Ettinger B, Gordan GS 1982 Quantitative computed tomography of vertebral spongiosa: a sensitive method for detecting early bone loss after oophorectomy. Ann Intern Med 97:699–705
  34. Genant HK, Lucas J, Weiss S, Akin M, Emkey R, McNaney-Flint H, Downs R, Mortola J, Watts N, Yang HM, Banav N, Brennan JJ, Nolan JC 1997 Low-dose esterified estrogen therapy: effects on bone, plasma estradiol concentrations, endometrium, and lipid levels. Estratab/Osteoporosis Study Group. Arch Intern Med 157:2609–2615[Abstract]
  35. Geusens P, Dequeker J, Gielen J, Schot LPC 1991 Non-linear increase in vertebral density induced by a synthetic steroid (Org OD 14) in women with established osteoporosis. Maturitas 13:155–162[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Gonnelli S, Cepollaro C, Pondrelli C, Martini S, Monaco R, Gennari C 1997 The usefulness of bone turnover in predicting the response to transdermal estrogen therapy in postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 12:624–631[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Greenspan S, Bankhurst A, Bell N 1998 Effects of alendronate and estrogen alone and in combination on bone mass and turnover in postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res S174 (Abstract 1107)
  38. Harris ST, Genant HK, Baylink DJ, Gallagher JC, Karp SK, McConnell MA, Green EM, Stoll RW 1991 The effects of estrone (Ogen) on spinal bone density of postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med 151:1980–1984[Abstract]
  39. Heikkinen J, Kyllonen E, Kurttila-Matero E, Wilen-Rosenqvist G, Lankinen KS, Rita H, Vaananen HK 1997 HRT and exercise: effects on bone density, muscle strength and lipid metabolism. A placebo controlled 2-year prospective trial on two estrogen-progestin regimens in healthy postmenopausal women. Maturitas 26:139–149[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Hesley RP, Shepard KA, Jenkins DK, Riggs BL 1998 Monitoring estrogen replacement therapy and identifying rapid bone losers with an immunoassay for deoxypyridinoline. Osteoporosis Int 8:159–164[Medline]
  41. Horsman A, Gallagher JC, Simpson M, Nordin BE 1977 Prospective trial of oestrogen and calcium in postmenopausal women. Br Med J 2:789–792
  42. Hosking D, Chilvers CE, Christiansen C, Ravn P, Wasnich R, Ross P, McClung M, Balske A, Thompson D, Daley M, Yates AJ 1998 Prevention of bone loss with alendronate in postmenopausal women under 60 years of age. Early Postmenopausal Intervention Cohort Study Group. N Engl J Med 338:485–492[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Isaia G, Campagnoli C, Mussetta M, Massobrio M, Salamano G, Gallo M, Molinatti GM 1989 Calcitonin and lumbar bone mineral content during oestrogen-progestogen administration in post-menopausal women. Maturitas 11:287–294[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Komulainen M, Tuppurainen MT, Kroger H, Heikkinen AM, Puntila E, Alhava E, Honkanen R, Saarikoski S 1997 Vitamin D and HRT: no benefit additional to that of HRT alone in prevention of bone loss in early postmenopausal women. A 2.5-year randomized placebo-controlled study. Osteoporosis Int 7:126–132[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Lindsay R, Hart DM, Aitken JM, MacDonald EB, Anderson JB, Clarke AC 1976 Long-term prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis by oestrogen. Evidence for an increased bone mass after delayed onset of oestrogen treatment. Lancet 1:1038–1041[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Lindsay R, Hart DM, Purdie D, Ferguson MM, Clark AS, Kraszewski A 1978 Comparative effects of oestrogen and progestogen on bone loss in postmenopausal women. Clin Sci Mol Med 54:193–195[Medline]
  47. Lindsay R, Hart DM, Kraszewski A 1980 Prospective double-blind trial of synthetic steroid (Org OD 14) for preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis. BMJ 280:1207–1209
  48. Lindsay R, Hart DM, Clark DM 1984 The minimum effective dose of estrogen for prevention of postmenopausal bone loss. Obstet Gynecol 63:759–763[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Lindsay R, Tohme JF 1990 Estrogen treatment of patients with established postmenopausal osteoporosis. Obstet Gynecol 76:290–295[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Lyritis G, Karpathios S, Basdekis K, Grigoriou O, Katostaras T, Paspati I, Stamatopoulos T, Siampalioti G, Lyritis P 1995 Prevention of post-oophorectomy bone loss with Tibolone. Maturitas 22:247–253[CrossRef][Medline]
  51. MacIntyre I, Stevenson JC, Whitehead MI, Wimalawansa SJ, Banks LM, Healy MJ 1988 Calcitonin for prevention of postmenopausal bone loss. Lancet 1:900–902[Medline]
  52. Marslew U, Riis BJ, Christiansen C 1991 Desogestrel in hormone replacement therapy: long-term effects on bone, calcium and lipid metabolism, climacteric symptoms, and bleeding. Eur J Clin Invest 21:601–607[Medline]
  53. Marslew U, Overgaard K, Riis BJ, Christiansen C 1992 Two new combinations of estrogen and progestogen for prevention of postmenopausal bone loss: long-term effects on bone, calcium and lipid metabolism, climacteric symptoms, and bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 79:202–210[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Meschia M, Brincat M, Barbacini P, Crossignani PG, Albisetti W 1993 A clinical trial on the effects of a combination of elcatonin (carbocalcitonin) and conjugated estrogens on vertebral bone mass in early postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int. 53:17–20
  55. Mizunuma H, Okano H, Soda M, Kagami I, Miyamoto S, Tokizawa T, Honjo S, Ibuki Y 1997 Prevention of postmenopausal bone loss with minimal uterine bleeding using low dose continuous estrogen/progestin therapy: a 2-year prospective study. Maturitas 27:69–76[CrossRef][Medline]
  56. Munk-Jensen N, Pors Nielsen S, Obel EB, Bonne EP 1988 Reversal of postmenopausal vertebral bone loss by oestrogen and progestogen: a double blind placebo controlled study. BMJ 296:1150–1152
  57. Palacios S, Menendez C, Jurado AR, Vargas JC 1995 Effects of percutaneous oestradiol versus oral oestrogens on bone density. Maturitas 20:209–213[CrossRef]
  58. Perez-Jaraiz MD, Revilla M, Alvarez de los Heros JI, Villa LF, Rico H 1996 Prophylaxis of osteoporosis with calcium, estrogens and/or eelcatonin: comparative longitudinal study of bone mass. Maturitas 23:327–332[CrossRef][Medline]
  59. The Writing Group for the PEPI Trial 1996 Effects of hormone therapy on none mineral density. JAMA 276:1389–1396[Abstract]
  60. Recker RR, Saville PD, Heaney RP 1977 Effect of estrogens and calcium carbonate on bone loss in postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med 87:649–655
  61. Resch H, Pietschmann P, Krexner E, Woloszczuk W, Willvonseder R 1990 Effects of one-year hormone replacement therapy on peripheral bone mineral content in patients with osteoporotic spine fractures. Acta Endocrinol 123:14–18
  62. Riis B, Thomsen K, Christiansen C 1987 Does calcium supplementation prevent postmenopausal bone loss? A double-blind, controlled clinical study. N Engl J Med 316:173–177[Abstract]
  63. Riis BJ, Nilas L, Christiansen C 1987 Does calcium potentiate the effect of estrogen therapy on post-menopausal osteoporosis. Bone Miner 2:1–9[Medline]
  64. Riis BJ, Johansen J, Christiansen C 1988 Continuous oestrogen-progestogen treatment and bone metabolism in post-menopausal women. Maturitas 10:51–58[CrossRef][Medline]
  65. Rosen CJ, Chesnut III CH, Mallinak NJ 1997 The predictive value of biochemical markers of bone turnover for bone mineral density in early postmenopausal women treated with hormone replacement or calcium supplementation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 82:1904–1910[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  66. Speroff L, Rowan J, Symons J, Genant H, Wilborn W 1996 The comparative effect on bone density, endometrium, and lipids of continuous hormones as replacement therapy (CHART study). A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 276:1397–1403[Abstract]
  67. Tremollieres F, Pouilles JM, Ribot C 1993 Effect of long-term administration of progestogen on post-menopausal bone loss: result of a two year, controlled randomized study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 38:627–631[Medline]
  68. Wimalawansa S 1995 Combined therapy with estrogen and etidronate has an additive effect on bone mineral density in the hip and vertebrae: four-year randomized study. Am J Med 99:36–42[CrossRef][Medline]
  69. Wimalawansa SJ 1998 A four-year randomized controlled trial of hormone replacement and bisphosphonate, alone or in combination, in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Am J Med 104:219–226[CrossRef][Medline]
  70. Alexandersen P, Riis BJ, Christiansen C 1999 Monoflurophosphate combined with hormone replacement therapy induces a synergistic effect on bone mass by dissociating bone formation and resoprtion in post-menopausal women: a randomized study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84:3013–3020[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Ravn P, Bidstrup M, Wasnich RD, Davis JW, McClung MR, Balske A 1999 Alendronate and estrogen-progestin in the long-term prevention of bone loss; four-year results from the Early Post-menopausal Intervention Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med 131:935–942[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H 1996 Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 312:1254–1259[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Torgerson DJ, Bell-Syer SEM 2001 Hormone replacement therapy and prevention of nonvertebral fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 285:2891–2897[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  74. Aitken JM, Hart DM, Lindsay R 1993 Oestrogen replacement therapy for prevention of osteoporosis after oophorectomy. BMJ 3:515–518
  75. Nachtigall LE, Nachtigall RH, Nachtigall RD, Beckman M 1979 Estrogen replacement therapy I: a 10-year prospective study in the relationship to osteoporosis. Obstet Gynecol 53:277–281[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Eiken P, Nielsen SP, Kolthoff N 1997 Effects on bone mass after eight years of hormonal replacement therapy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:702–707[Medline]
  77. Orr-Walker BJ, Evans MC, Clearwater JM, Horne A, Grey AB, Reid IR 2000 Effects of hormone replacement therapy on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with primary hyperparathyroidism. Arch Intern Med 160:2161–2166[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  78. Mulnard RA, Cotman CW, Kawas C, van Dyck CH, Sano M, Doody R, Koss E, Pfeiffer E, Jin S, Gamst A, Grundman M, Thomas R, Thal LJ 2000 Estrogen replacement therapy for treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. JAMA 283:107–115
  79. Weiss SR, Ellman H, Dolker M 1999 A randomized controlled trial of four doses of transdermal estradiol for preventing postmenopausal bone loss. Obstet Gynecol 94:330–336[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  80. Herrington DM, Reboussin DM, Brosnihan B, Sharp PC, Shumaker SA, Snyder TE, Furberg CD, Kowalchuk GJ, Stuckey TD, Rogers WJ, Givens DH, Waters D 2000 Effects of estrogen replacement on the progression of coronary-artery atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 343:522–529[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  81. Mosekilde L, Beck-Nielsen H, Sorensen OH, Nielsen SP, Charles P, Vestergaard P, Hermann AP, Gram J, HansenTB, Abrahamsen B, Ebbesen EN, Stilgren L, Jensen LB, Brot C, Hansen B, Tofteng CL, Eiken P, Kolthoff 2000 Hormonal replacement therapy reduces forearm fracture incidence in recent postmenopausal women; results of the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study. Maturitas 36:181–193[CrossRef][Medline]
  82. Torgerson DJ, Bell-Syer SE 2001 Hormone replacement therapy and prevention of vertebral fractures: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2:7[CrossRef][Medline]
  83. Lindsay R, Hart DM, Forrest C, Baird C 1980 Prevention of spinal osteoporosis in oophorectomised women. Lancet 2:1151–1154[Medline]
  84. Gallagher JC, Fowler SE, Detter JR, Sherman SS 2001 Combination treatment with estrogen and calcitriol in the prevention of age-related bone loss. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86:3618–3628[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  85. Barrett-Connor E, Grady D 1998 Hormone replacement therapy, heart disease and other considerations. Annu Rev Public Health 19:55–72[CrossRef][Medline]
  86. Viscoli CM, Brass LM, Kernan WN, Sarrel PM, Suissa S, Horowitz RI 2001 A clinical trial of estrogen-replacement therapy after ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 345:1243–1249[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  87. Mosca L, Collins P, Herrington DM, Mendelsohn ME, Pasternak RC, Robertson RM, Schenck-Gustafsson K, Smith SC, Taubert KA, Wenger NK 2001 Hormone replacement therapy and cardiovascular disease: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation 104:499–503[Free Full Text]
  88. Collaborative Group on Hormone Factors in Breast Cancer 1997 Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Lancet 350: 1047–59
  89. The Women’s Health Initiative Group 1998 Design of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. Control Clin Trials 19:61–109[CrossRef][Medline]
  90. McGowan JA, Pottern L 2000 Commentary on the Women’s Health Initiative. Maturitas 34:109–112[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
C. MacLean, S. Newberry, M. Maglione, M. McMahon, V. Ranganath, M. Suttorp, W. Mojica, M. Timmer, A. Alexander, M. McNamara, et al.
Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women with Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis
Ann Intern Med, February 5, 2008; 148(3): 197 - 213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
T. R. Rebbeck, A. B. Troxel, S. Norman, G. Bunin, A. DeMichele, R. Schinnar, J. A. Berlin, and B. L. Strom
Pharmacogenetic Modulation of Combined Hormone Replacement Therapy by Progesterone-Metabolism Genotypes in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Risk
Am. J. Epidemiol., December 15, 2007; 166(12): 1392 - 1399.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Endocr. Rev.Home page
M. Schumacher, R. Guennoun, A. Ghoumari, C. Massaad, F. Robert, M. El-Etr, Y. Akwa, K. Rajkowski, and E.-E. Baulieu
Novel Perspectives for Progesterone in Hormone Replacement Therapy, with Special Reference to the Nervous System
Endocr. Rev., June 1, 2007; 28(4): 387 - 439.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
S. Khosla and L. J. Melton III
Osteopenia
N. Engl. J. Med., May 31, 2007; 356(22): 2293 - 2300.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
B. L. Strom, R. Schinnar, A. L. Weber, G. Bunin, J. A. Berlin, M. Baumgarten, A. DeMichele, S. C. Rubin, M. Berlin, A. B. Troxel, et al.
Case-Control Study of Postmenopausal Hormone Replacement Therapy and Endometrial Cancer
Am. J. Epidemiol., October 15, 2006; 164(8): 775 - 786.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
T. R. Rebbeck, A. B. Troxel, Y. Wang, A. H. Walker, S. Panossian, S. Gallagher, E. G. Shatalova, R. Blanchard, G. Bunin, A. DeMichele, et al.
Estrogen sulfation genes, hormone replacement therapy, and endometrial cancer risk.
J Natl Cancer Inst, September 20, 2006; 98(18): 1311 - 1320.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
H. I.J. Wildschut, T.J. Peters, and C. P. Weiner
Screening in women's health, with emphasis on fetal Down's syndrome, breast cancer and osteoporosis
Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2006; 12(5): 499 - 512.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
C. J. Rosen
Postmenopausal Osteoporosis
N. Engl. J. Med., August 11, 2005; 353(6): 595 - 603.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Dietel, M.A. Lewis, and S. Shapiro
Hormone replacement therapy: pathobiological aspects of hormone-sensitive cancers in women relevant to epidemiological studies on HRT: a mini-review
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2005; 20(8): 2052 - 2060.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 QJMHome page
D.J. Hosking, P. Geusens, and R. Rizzoli
Osteoporosis therapy: an example of putting evidence-based medicine into clinical practice
QJM, June 1, 2005; 98(6): 403 - 413.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. C. Ho, Y.-m. Chen, and J. L. F. Woo
Educational Level and Osteoporosis Risk in Postmenopausal Chinese Women
Am. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2005; 161(7): 680 - 690.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
M. L. Bouxsein, J. Kaufman, L. Tosi, S. Cummings, J. Lane, and O. Johnell
Recommendations for Optimal Care of the Fragility Fracture Patient to Reduce the Risk of Future Fracture
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., November 1, 2004; 12(6): 385 - 395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
Osteoporosis
Obstet. Gynecol., October 1, 2004; 104(4_suppl): 66S - 76S.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
E. Banks, V. Beral, G. Reeves, A. Balkwill, and I. Barnes
Fracture Incidence in Relation to the Pattern of Use of Hormone Therapy in Postmenopausal Women
JAMA, May 12, 2004; 291(18): 2212 - 2220.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
The Women's Health Initiative Steering Committee
Effects of Conjugated Equine Estrogen in Postmenopausal Women With Hysterectomy: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial
JAMA, April 14, 2004; 291(14): 1701 - 1712.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page