Hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms (hot flashes, night sweats and vaginal dryness). However, it is clear that taking hormone therapy has certain risks – stroke, heart attack, blood clots – and if taken for five years – breast cancer. New studies and analyses indicate that the breast cancer risk associated with hormone therapy goes up after 3 years and now women are being advised to stop taking the medication after 2 years if they wish to avoid this risk. Whether 2 years or 3 years should be the right cut-off for stopping hormone therapy remains controversial. What is not controversial is that women can safely take hormone therapy for short periods of time if they are bothered by menopausal symptoms, or chose among several other non-hormone therapy options.
This story does a good job of describing the design of the latest studies and pointing out that these "observational" retrospective survey studies are less reliable than more robust study designs.
The story adequately quantifies the increased risk of breast cancer. While the story does provide quantification in relative terms only for the WHI study (it mentions a 60% increase), it does use absolute numbers to quantify the increase in the American Cancer Society analysis (the story describes how the risk of breast cancer would increase from 1 in 52 to 1 in 26).
Everyone quoted was either involved in the study or works for the drug manufacturer. This is the main flaw in an otherwise high quality story.
It would not be necessary for the story to discuss the costs of hormone therapy.
The story adequately quantifies the increased risk in breast cancer. While the story does provide quantification in relative terms only for the WHI study (it mentions a 60% increase), it does use absolute numbers to quantify the increase in the American Cancer Society analysis (the story describes how the risk of breast cancer would increase from 1 in 52 to 1 in 26).
The story mentions risk of stroke, heart disease and blood clots in addition to breast cancer.
The story does a good job of describing the design of the current studies and pointing out that these "observational" retrospective survey studies are less reliable than more robust study designs.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of breast cancer.
Everyone quoted was either involved in the study or works for the drug manufacturer. This is the main flaw in an otherwise high quality story.
Because the point of the story is to discuss the risk of breast cancer associated with hormone therapy, it would not be necessary for the story to mention alternative treatment options.
Clearly hormone therapy is available.
Clearly hormone therapy is not a new idea.
It’s clear there was enterprise reporting involved in this story.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like