Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on March 31, 2006
International Journal of Epidemiology 2006 35(3):738-739; doi:10.1093/ije/dyl039
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/3/738    most recent
dyl039v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stampfer, M. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stampfer, M. J
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2006; all rights reserved.

Commentary

Commentary: Hormones, heart disease, and the definition of hormone ‘initiation’

Meir J Stampfer

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA. E-mail: stampfer@hsph.harvard.edu

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Observational studies consistently find that users of post-menopausal hormone therapy (HT) are at substantially lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).1 These results were replicated most recently by Kim et al.,2 in this issue, who find a 24% reduction in risk of myocardial infarction among current HT users. In stark contrast, randomized trials of HT show no overall reduction in CHD and provide convincing evidence for a short-term increase in risk when initiated among women with CHD and possibly among women with no clinical CHD.3 The apparent discrepancy has drawn appropriate scrutiny, and a variety of . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
J. Kim, S. Evans, L. Smeeth, and S. Pocock
Response: Response to the Stampfer commentary
Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2006; 35(3): 740 - 740.
[Full Text] [PDF]