PubMed · 15458939
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Women's Health Care Physicians. 2004. Skin.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000138794.78455.bf
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The Menopause Rating Scale is a health-related Quality of Life scale developed in the early 1990s and step-by-step validated since then. Recently the MRS scale was validated as outcomes measure for hormone therapy. The suspicion however was expressed that the data were too optimistic due to methodological problems of the study. A new study became available to check how founded this suspicion was. METHOD: An open post-marketing study of 3282 women with pre- and post- treatment data of the self-administered version of the MRS scale was analyzed to evaluate the capacity of the scale to detect hormone treatment related effects with the MRS scale. The main results were then compared with the old study where the interview-based version of the MRS scale was used. RESULTS: The hormone-therapy related improvement of complaints relative to the baseline score was about or less than 30% in total or domain scores, whereas it exceeded 30% improvement in the old study. Similarly, the relative improvement after therapy, stratified by the degree of severity at baseline, was lower in the new than in the old study, but had the same slope. Although we cannot exclude different treatment effects with the study method used, this supports our hypothesis that the individual MRS interviews performed by the physician biased the results towards over-estimation of the treatment effects. This hypothesis is underlined by the degree of concordance of physician's assessment and patient's perception of treatment success (MRS results): Sensitivity (correct prediction of the positive assessment by the treating physician) of the MRS and specificity (correct prediction of a negative assessment by the physician) were lower than the results obtained with the interview-based MRS scale in the previous publication. CONCLUSION: The study confirmed evidence for the capacity of the MRS scale to measure treatment effects on quality of life across the full range of severity of complaints before treatment. The difference of the relative improvement after therapy between the old and current study as well as the observed different sensitivity/specificity is--as a matter of probability--more likely to be caused by a bias introduced by the different application of the MRS scale than by real differences in the efficacy of the therapy. A randomized clinical trial would be needed to test the impact of the latter. The message for future studies is: The MRS scale should be only used as self-administered tool where the suggestive effect of questions raised by health professionals ("therapeutic optimism") can be largely excluded.
This new statement from EMAS presents the findings reported in recent publications from both WHI and the Nurses' Health Study to consider if these findings require the EMAS position to be modified. In general the reports do not necessitate a revision of the current EMAS advice but do provide further insight into the ongoing controversy around the possibility that estrogen (E) or estrogen-progestogen (E-P) use in younger postmenopausal women may supply cardiovascular benefit in the younger group.
OBJECTIVE: Data from placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials conducted during the past few years resulted in critical re-evaluation of the overall health benefits of hormone therapy (HT) in women during the menopausal transition and thereafter. These data stimulated vigorous debate among experts and produced several position papers by North American and European authorities providing guidance on the use of HT. It is well known that cultural, geographic and ethnic differences influence the acceptance and risk perception of HT. Therefore, it was considered essential to present a position specifically relevant to Latin American countries. METHODS: A Latin American Expert Panel, convening in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, obtained consensus on recommendations for HT that incorporated the findings of the most recently published reports. The panelists' opinions were surveyed by means of the Likert scale along five categories ranging from complete agreement to complete disagreement. RESULTS: The Panel presented 13 recommendations and considered three additional issues relevant to HT use. There was consensus that HT during the perimenopause and thereafter is warranted in Latin American women in particular for the management of vasomotor symptoms. HT may also be an option for osteoporosis prevention in women at significant risk, after evaluation of risks/benefits and after consideration of alternative therapies. HT should be individualized and prescribed at the lowest effective dose. CONCLUSIONS: The Panel concluded that HT remains a safe and effective treatment option for peri- and postmenopausal Latin American women.