MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Indications and efficacy of progestogen-monotherapy as menopause hormone therapy (MHT): A narrative review

2025· article· en· W4413992948 on OpenAlexafffund
C.R. Thomas, Olivia Carere, Lauren Clarfield, Michelle Jacobson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProgestogenMenopauseHormone therapyMedicineNarrative reviewNarrativeGynecologyInternal medicineHormoneArtIntensive care medicineCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and other manifestations of menopause; however, its use is limited in women with contraindications to estrogen. Progestogen monotherapy, though historically underutilized, represents a viable alternative in this population. This narrative review summarizes the indications, efficacy, and limitations of progestogen monotherapy as MHT. A structured literature search identified systematic reviews, guidelines, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies evaluating progestogen monotherapy for menopausal symptom management, bone health, and oncologic safety. Evidence supports its use in patients with contraindications specific to estrogen, including those with certain gynecologic malignancies (e.g., low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma, select ovarian cancers), prior venous thromboembolism, coronary artery disease, compensated liver disease, and endometriosis. Contraindications to progestogen monotherapy are limited to unexplained abnormal vaginal bleeding and personal history of breast cancer. Clinical data demonstrate that progestogens provide significant VMS relief, with efficacy observed across oral, intramuscular, and transdermal preparations. Micronized progesterone shows additional benefits for sleep quality, while synthetic progestins such as medroxyprogesterone acetate, megestrol acetate, and norethindrone acetate variably confer bone protection. Effects on mood appear neutral overall. Breast cancer risk associated with progestogen monotherapy remains uncertain due to limited and underpowered studies. Despite promising evidence, research is constrained by heterogeneous methodologies, small sample sizes, and lack of contemporary trials directly comparing progestogen monotherapy with standard MHT or nonhormonal alternatives. In conclusion, progestogen monotherapy is an effective, well-tolerated, and under-recognized therapeutic option for women with contraindications to estrogen-containing MHT. Its optimal use may be tailored to clinical context: micronized progesterone for sleep disturbance, norethindrone acetate for bone health, or progestins with known antineoplastic properties in hormone-sensitive tumors. Larger, high-quality studies are needed to better define long-term safety and efficacy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→