{"title":"关于最近的百万妇女研究的评论和随后的宣传。","authors":"Nick Panay","doi":"10.1258/mi.2012.012006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"of critique The Million Women Study (MWS) was one of the major studies that raised concerns over the long-term safety of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Shapiro et al. applied causal criteria, such as biases and biological plausibility, to assess the MWS findings. Their analysis highlighted several design flaws that would potentially have skewed the findings; the key criticisms of the MWS design were as follows:","PeriodicalId":87478,"journal":{"name":"Menopause international","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1258/mi.2012.012006","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary regarding recent Million Women Study critique and subsequent publicity.\",\"authors\":\"Nick Panay\",\"doi\":\"10.1258/mi.2012.012006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"of critique The Million Women Study (MWS) was one of the major studies that raised concerns over the long-term safety of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Shapiro et al. applied causal criteria, such as biases and biological plausibility, to assess the MWS findings. Their analysis highlighted several design flaws that would potentially have skewed the findings; the key criticisms of the MWS design were as follows:\",\"PeriodicalId\":87478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Menopause international\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1258/mi.2012.012006\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Menopause international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1258/mi.2012.012006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Menopause international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1258/mi.2012.012006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Commentary regarding recent Million Women Study critique and subsequent publicity.
of critique The Million Women Study (MWS) was one of the major studies that raised concerns over the long-term safety of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Shapiro et al. applied causal criteria, such as biases and biological plausibility, to assess the MWS findings. Their analysis highlighted several design flaws that would potentially have skewed the findings; the key criticisms of the MWS design were as follows: