This story has several important limitations and conflates a number of different issues in a potentially confusing way. It fails to mention that the new findings on estrogen apply only to women who have had hysterectomy—some 200,000 women in 2000, according to the North American Menopause Society. The majority of women—about 1.8 million in 2000—go through menopause naturally, with their uterus intact. Many of them will not have “unpleasant” symptoms, and so may have no reason to face the question about hormones. If they do, their main hormone option is to take progesterone along with estrogen—not estrogen alone. The piece also does not mention that estrogen-only therapy also increases the risk of stroke and blood clots, which are rare but important side effects. The story is further confusing by mixing quotes that refer to the old hormone paradigm, which suggested a since disproven heart benefit with long-term hormone use, and the new paradigm of short-term hormone use only to manage symptoms.
No mention of costs.
No data on benefits or harms.
No data on benefits or harms.
Study population not defined, which in this case is important since most women going through menopause still have their uterus and so would not be able to take estrogen alone.
The story states that more than 50 million American women will be going through menopause in 2006. Based on 2000 census data, the North American Menopause Society estimated that 1.8 million women will reach menopause during 2000; and that about 260,000 will undergo surgical menopause–the only population to whom this study applies.
No mention of alternatives.
No evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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