Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of oral estrogens and estrogens plus androgen on bone mineral density, menopausal symptoms, and lipid-lipoprotein profiles in surgical menopause

WATTS, N, NOTELOVITZ, M, CHRYSTIETIMMONS, M, ALLENADDISON, W, WIITA, B, DOWNEY, L·1995·Obstetrics & Gynecology
DOI 10.1016/0029-7844(94)00448-m
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare an oral estrogen-androgen combination with estrogens alone on bone, menopausal symptoms, and lipoprotein profiles in postmenopausal women. METHODS: Surgically menopausal women received oral esterified estrogens (1.25 mg), or esterified estrogens (1.25 mg) and methyltestosterone (2.5 mg) daily, for 2 years. Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and hip, menopausal symptoms, lipoprotein profiles, and biochemical and hematologic indices were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Both treatment regimens prevented bone loss at the spine and hip; combined estrogen-androgen therapy was associated with a significant increase in spinal bone mineral density compared with baseline (n = 24; mean score +/- standard error 3.4 +/- 1.2%, P < .01). In the estrogen group, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol increased significantly and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased significantly. Cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides decreased significantly in the estrogen-androgen group. Menopausal symptoms of somatic origin (hot flashes, vaginal dryness, and insomnia) were improved significantly by both treatments. Neither adverse hepatic effects nor significant safety or tolerance problems were reported in either group. CONCLUSION: Oral estrogen-androgen increased vertebral bone mineral density compared with pre-treatment values and relieved somatic symptoms. Safety indices, including lipoprotein levels, indicated that the combination was well tolerated over the 2 years of treatment.

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 · 10.1016/0029-7844(94)00448-m

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
WATTS, N., NOTELOVITZ, M., CHRYSTIETIMMONS, M., ALLENADDISON, W., WIITA, B., & DOWNEY, L.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1995-04
Volume
85
Issue
4
Pages
529-537
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0029-7844(94)00448-m
OpenAlex
W1968654828
Cited by
270
References
5
FWCI
7.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.