Methods |
Design: parallel‐group, active arms versus placebo
Number screened: 1,191 (principal reasons for ineligibility: too few hot flushes (251), not interested (216) and medical conditions/medications (192))
Number randomly assigned: 252
Number dropped out: six (two taking Promensil (one too busy, one no improvement), two taking Rimostil (one nauseated, one on physician's advice), two taking placebo (one feared possible placebo, one too busy))
Number lost to follow‐up:
Number analysed: 252
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes (also per‐protocol analysis)
Power calculation: 90% power to detect at least a 15% greater reduction in hot flush frequency in the active arm compared with placebo; 25% placebo effect anticipated
Duration: 12 weeks
Timing: November 1999 to March 2001
Location: three US academic clinical research sites
Funding: industry (Novogen Inc) |
Participants |
Inclusion criteria: women 45 to 60 years of age, experiencing at least 35 hot flushes/wk, FSH level 30 mIU/mL, documented bilateral oophorectomy or at least two consecutive months of amenorrhoea before enrolment, with at least six months of amenorrhoea during the year before entry
Exclusion criteria: vegetarian, ate soy products > once a week, taking medications affecting isoflavone absorption or hormonal preparations during previous three months, significant gastrointestinal disease, > two alcoholic beverages per day, allergic to red clover, consumed < 80% of expected study tablets during the two‐week placebo run‐in
Age, years: 52.3 (SD 2.8 to 3.4 in different arms)
Recruitment method: newspaper and radio advertising, flyers, directed mailings |
Interventions |
|
Outcomes |
Menopausal symptoms: daily diary cards for recording hot flushes and night sweats
Quality of life: Greene Climacteric Scale
Compliance: pill count
Adverse effects: assessed at follow‐up, specific method unclear |
Notes |
|
Risk of bias |
Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Computer generated in random blocks of six, stratified by centre |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Allocation schedule maintained remotely, at pharmacy |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Stated as double‐blind: participants and researchers |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Stated as double‐blind: participants and researchers |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
All randomly assigned participants analysed |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
All prespecified outcomes reported |