MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213033746 · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000001921

Comparing estrogen-based hormonal contraceptives and hormone therapy on bone mineral density in women with premature ovarian insufficiency: a systematic review

2022· article· en· W4213033746 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone mineralHormoneHormone therapyLumbar spineBone densityOsteoporosisClinical trialRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is a condition associated with estrogen deficiency which leads to decreased bone mineral density and an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Estrogen-based hormone therapy is an integral component of treatment; however, to date the ideal hormone formulation for optimizing bone health has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of estrogen-based oral contraceptives (OCP) versus hormone therapy (HT) on bone mineral density (BMD) in women with POI. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was conducted from conception until December 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that met inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias for RCTs. The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. FINDINGS: Our search yielded 1,227 studies; 3 RCTs and 2 observational cohort studies met inclusion criteria and were included in our study. The largest subpopulation was Turner Syndrome (n = 625), followed by idiopathic POI (n = 146). Of the four studies that assessed changes in BMD, two studies reported a significant increase in lumbar spine BMD with HT compared with OCP (+0.050 g/cm2, P < 0.025; +0.019 g/cm2, P < 0.01), one study found similar improvement in lumbar spine BMD across treatments (HT -0.003 g/cm2, P = 0.824), and one study did not directly compare treatments. Effects on bone turnover markers were inconsistent across three studies that evaluated this outcome. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This is the first systematic review to include studies that directly compared OCP and HT on bone outcomes in POI. While two studies reported increased lumbar spine BMD with HT, this result was not consistently found across studies. There were important differences in POI etiology, treatment regimens and formulations, and risk of bias was high in many of the studies. These results indicate future, larger-scale trials are needed to further understand the optimal hormone therapy for bone density in POI.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.010
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause SocietySame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207