Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women

Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators. (2002). Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women: Principal Results From the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, 288(3), 321-333.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2002

Volume

288

Issue

3

Pages

321-333

DOI

10.1001/jama.288.3.321

DOI registrant

American Medical Association

Link

https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.3.321

Cited from

statistics_experimental_design

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Confounding
  • The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) hormone-replacement-therapy (HRT) randomized trial, reporting its initial results in 2002 (Rossouw et al. JAMA), provides a canonical demonstration of confounding in observational research and its resolution through experimentation

    This sourceThe WHI RCT that was stopped early for unfavorable risk–benefit (CHD hazard ratio ≈1.29); the canonical observational-to-experimental reversal demonstrating confounding (supports D25-025).

    Supported in partVerified against the work's full text

    The WHI paper is the randomized trial that tested estrogen plus progestin after decades of observational evidence; the cached text does not itself name confounding.

    “Despite decades of accumulated observational evidence, the balance of risks and benefits for hormone use in healthy postmenopausal women remains uncertain.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:40cda9310357 · see in the full table