MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2771508756 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003122

Hormone replacement therapy for cognitive function in postmenopausal women

2002· review· en· W2771508756 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eef Hogervorst, Kristine Yaffe, Marcus Richards, Felicia A. Huppert

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBlindingPlaceboHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Randomized controlled trialCINAHLMeta-analysisPsycINFOMenopauseCognitionMEDLINEInternal medicineAlternative medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatryTestosterone (patch)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As estrogens have been found in animal models to be associated with the maintenance and protection of brain structures, it is biologically plausible that maintaining high levels of estrogens in postmenopausal women by medication could be protective against cognitive decline. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of ERT (estrogens only) or HRT (estrogens combined with a progestagen) in comparison with placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on cognitive function in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: The CDCIG Specialized Register was searched using the terms ORT, PORT, ERT, HRT, estrogen*, oestrogen*, progesteron* on 16 May 2002. In addition MEDLINE (1966-2002/01); EMBASE (1985-2000/11); PsycINFO (1967-2002/01) and CINAHL (1982-2001/12) were searched as the CDCIG Register does not contain all trials with healthy volunteers. SELECTION CRITERIA: All double-blind randomized controlled trials of the effect of ERT or HRT on cognitive function over a treatment period of at least two weeks in postmenopausal women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Abstracts of the references retrieved by the searches were read by two reviewers in order to discard those that were clearly not eligible for inclusion. The two reviewers studied the full text of the remaining references and independently selected studies for inclusion. Any disparity in the resulting lists was resolved by discussion with all reviewers in order to arrive at the final list of included studies. The selection criteria ensured that the blinding and randomization of the included studies was adequate. Two reviewers (EH and KY) assessed the quality of other aspects including design and assessment of outcomes. One reviewer (EH) extracted the data from the studies. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 15 trials involving 566 postmenopausal women were included, but 6 studies did not have adequate data for analysis. Meta-analyses showed a positive effect of 10 mg of estradiol (E2) bolus injections intramuscularly monthly in relatively young surgically menopausal women on the Paired Associate learning test immediate recall (z=2.40, p<0.05, chi-square test=1.12, p=0.29, SMD=1.02, 95% C.I.=0.19-1.85), on a test of abstract reasoning (z=10.45, p<0.0001, WMD=6.80, 95% C.I.=5.52-8.08) and a test of speed and accuracy (z=9.16, p<0.0001 WMD=6.00, 95% C.I.=4.72-7.28). However, most studies showed no evidence of an effect on verbal or visuospatial memory, mental rotations, speed or accuracy measures. There was little evidence that Premarin, the most widely prescribed estrogen for postmenopausal use, had positive effects on cognitive function. The one effect of 9 months of treatment with Premarin (and a progestagen) on a measure of complex speed of information processing (the TMT-B) was probably explained by baseline differences, as it was not reported by the authors. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence regarding the effect HRT or ERT on overall cognitive function in healthy postmenopausal women. There was an effect on some verbal memory functions (immediate recall), on a test of abstract reasoning and a test of speed and accuracy in relatively young (47 years of age) surgically menopausal women who had been given a bolus intramuscular injection of 10 mg E2 every month for 3 months. These effects were from small studies from a single research group. It remains to be determined whether factors such as an older age (> 69 years of age), type of menopause (surgical or natural) and type of treatment (E2 with or without a progestagen), mode of delivery (transdermal, oral or intramuscular), dosage and duration (> 3 months) could alter the effect on memory functions to a clinically relevant level. In addition, whether the absence or presence of menopausal symptoms can modify treatment effects should be investigated in more detail. Longitudinal RCTs currently underway in the U.S.A., U.K. and Canada will be able to test these hypotheses by the year 2010.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,017
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,306
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0170,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0180,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,145
Tête enseignante GPT0,386
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations67
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207