Haas 2004.
| Methods | Study design: ITS | |
| Participants | Physicians Clinical speciality: not clear Level of training: fully trained Setting/country: outpatient (e.g. ambulatory care provided by hospitals/specialists)/US |
|
| Interventions | 2 PEMs are studied in this report: 1. The HERS published in 1998 and 2. The WHI, published on 17 July 2002. These clinical trials demonstrated that the risks associated with hormone therapy outweighed the benefits for women taking continuous oestrogen and progestin regimens | |
| Outcomes | 2 process outcomes:
|
|
| Notes | ‐ | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Intervention independent of other changes ‐ ITS | Unclear risk | No information was provided |
| Shape of Intervention effect pre‐specified ‐ ITS | Low risk | Quote, pg. 184: "we designed our analysis to examine whether the use of hormone therapy has changed among postmenopausal women as a result of the publication of the results from HERS and the WHI. We were also interested in examining whether patterns of use differ by patient characteristics. Because HERS examined the outcomes of older women, we hypothesized that there would be earlier and more substantial declines in hormone therapy use among this group. We also expected that there would be variation in use by race or ethnicity because white women may have better access to new information. Finally, because the WHI study results were specific to women taking continuous estrogen plus progestin, we hypothesized that hormone use would be more stable among women who had had hysterectomies because such women typically take only estrogen and may believe that the findings do not apply to them" |
| Intervention unlikely to affect data collection ‐ ITS | Low risk | The interventions (HERS study; WHI Study) did not affect either the source or method of data collection |
| Blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias) ‐ ITS All outcomes | Low risk | The outcome was objective |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ ITS All outcomes | Low risk | The San Francisco mammography registry was used |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) ‐ ITS | Low risk | All relevant outcomes in the methods section were reported in results section |
| Other bias ‐ ITS | Low risk | There was no evidence of other risks of bias |