Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,221

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Risk of Fracture and Bone Mineral Density<SUBTITLE>The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial</SUBTITLE>

Open access
Cauley, Jane A.·2003·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.290.13.1729
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: In the Women's Health Initiative trial of estrogen-plus-progestin therapy, women assigned to active treatment had fewer fractures. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the relative risk reduction of estrogen plus progestin on fractures differs according to risk factors for fractures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial (September 1993-July 2002) in which 16 608 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years with an intact uterus at baseline were recruited at 40 US clinical centers and followed up for an average of 5.6 years. INTERVENTION: Women were randomly assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogen, 0.625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg/d, in 1 tablet (n = 8506) or placebo (n = 8102). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All confirmed osteoporotic fracture events that occurred from enrollment to discontinuation of the trial (July 7, 2002); bone mineral density (BMD), measured in a subset of women (n = 1024) at baseline and years 1 and 3; and a global index, developed to summarize the balance of risks and benefits to test whether the risk-benefit profile differed across tertiles of fracture risk. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-three women (8.6%) in the estrogen-plus-progestin group and 896 women (11.1%) in the placebo group experienced a fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.83). The effect did not differ in women stratified by age, body mass index, smoking status, history of falls, personal and family history of fracture, total calcium intake, past use of hormone therapy, BMD, or summary fracture risk score. Total hip BMD increased 3.7% after 3 years of treatment with estrogen plus progestin compared with 0.14% in the placebo group (P<.001). The HR for the global index was similar across tertiles of the fracture risk scale (lowest fracture risk tertile, HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.93-1.58; middle tertile, HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.46; highest tertile, HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.24) (P for interaction =.54). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that estrogen plus progestin increases BMD and reduces the risk of fracture in healthy postmenopausal women. The decreased risk of fracture attributed to estrogen plus progestin appeared to be present in all subgroups of women examined. When considering the effects of hormone therapy on other important disease outcomes in a global model, there was no net benefit, even in women considered to be at high risk of fracture.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.290.13.1729

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cauley, J. A.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2003-10-01
Volume
290
Issue
13
Pages
1729
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.290.13.1729
OpenAlex
W2106286936
Cited by
1,221
References
6
FWCI
42.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.