ReviewMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Cardiovascular Risk: Current Evidence and Clinical Implications.
Review in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMenopausal hormone therapy (MHT) effectively relieves vasomotor symptoms, but its cardiovascular safety remains influenced by timing, formulation, and route of administration.
methodsThis narrative review summarizes evidence from major randomized trials (WHI, HERS, ELITE, DOPS) and observational studies, along with mechanistic data on the vascular and metabolic effects of MHT.
resultsAlthough early studies suggested cardioprotection, randomized trials showed no cardiovascular benefit, and in some cases, increased risks of coronary events, stroke, and venous thromboembolism, particularly in older women or those with established cardiovascular disease. The "timing hypothesis" indicates that early initiation after menopause may have neutral or modestly favorable effects, whereas late initiation is associated with adversity. Oral estrogen is linked to higher thromboembolic and stroke risk compared with transdermal formulations. Evidence on atrial fibrillation and heart failure remains limited.
conclusionsMHT should not be used for cardiovascular disease prevention. Current evidence suggests that younger women in the early postmenopausal period may derive the greatest benefit with the lowest risk from individualized hormone therapy regimens, particularly those using transdermal estrogen. Treatment decisions should be guided by careful cardiovascular risk assessment and targeted to symptom relief and osteoporosis prevention.
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.