ReviewThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2026
Then and Now: What We Have Learned From the WHI.
Review in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThis narrative review aims to highlight key learning points from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) studies, providing a nuanced appraisal of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) risks and benefits in postmenopausal women.
methodsA structured PubMed search was conducted using MeSH terms and keywords for MHT, bone health, cardiovascular and metabolic disease, cancer (breast, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal), and cognitive outcomes. The search included clinical trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews published in the English language.
resultsWHI data reveal that both combined conjugated equine estrogen-medroxyprogesterone acetate (CEE-MPA) and CEE-only therapy significantly reduce hip, vertebral, and total fracture risk, with further skeletal protection from calcium and vitamin D co-administration. Cardiovascular outcomes are strongly influenced by timing: initiation before age 60 or within 10 years of menopause may confer benefit, while delayed initiation (≥65 years) increases risks of coronary events and stroke, supporting the "window of opportunity" hypothesis. CEE-MPA therapy increases invasive breast cancer incidence (especially in prior users), while estrogen-only therapy is associated with a marginal nonsignificant reduction in breast cancer risk. Both regimens lowered colorectal cancer incidence during active treatment. Early MHT initiation has no effect on cognitive function, whereas late initiation increases dementia risk.
conclusionWHI findings underscore the importance of individualized, time-sensitive MHT use, with benefits and risks shaped by formulation, timing, and patient characteristics. These insights continue to inform evolving clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.