Jump to content

Talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]
Please do not add timestamps to this section - this will avoid archiving of potentially useful sources.

Cirigliano quotes:

  • [1]
  • [2] - single paragraph mention arguing against compounded products and for FDA-approved, but not for bioidentical hormones in general
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5] - single paragraph, notes a lack of large clinical trials, argues for FDA approved versions
  • [6] - single mention from 2005, stated no evidence for efficacy or adverse effects
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9] Saskatchewan’s Academic Detailing Program
  • [10] (membership required)
  • [11] (membership required)
  • [12] (membership required)
  • [13] (membership required)
  • [14] (membership required)
  • [15] (membership required)
  • [16] (membership required)
  • [17] (membership required)
  • [18]

I've requested the following from TimVickers. I've struck through the ones I got, and am trying to find the rest.

  • Curcio JJ, Wollner DA, Schmidt JW, Kim LS. "Is Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy Safer than Traditional Hormone Replacement Therapy?: A Critical Appraisal of Cardiovascular Risks in Menopausal Women." Treat Endocrinol. 2006;5(6):367-374. PMID 17107222
  • Cicinelli E "Bioidentical estradiol gel for hormone therapy in menopause." Expert Review of Obstretrics and Gynecology, Volume 2, Number 4, July 2007 , pp. 423-430(8) PMID 17107222
  • Lam Po M, Cheung GWY, Shek DT, Lee DTS, et al. "Bioidentical hormone therapy: a review." Menopause 2004;11(3):356-67.(erroneous citation number 15 seen in this paper intended to cite Boothby et al?
  • Boothby LA, Doering PL, Kipersztok S. "Bioidentical hormone therapy: a review" Menopause, 2004;11(3):356-67. PMID 15167316

or possibly intended as another paper from the same issue,

  • Lam PM, Cheung GW, Shek DT, Lee DT, Haines CJ, Chung TK. "A randomized, placebocontrolled, crossover study of tibolone (Livial) on menopause symptoms, psychological wellbeing, and dyadic relationship of postmenopausal Chinese women and their spouses." Menopause. 2004;11(4):416–422. PMID 15243279
  • Roush, K "Menopausal Hormone Therapy: What We Know Now" American Journal of Nursing. 2011, 111 (6), p. 38-47. PMID 21613919, doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000398539.52283.55, link
  • Pharmacology for Women's Health. Jones & Bartlett Learning. 2009. pp. 377. ISBN 0763753297. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  • Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for prevention, diagnosis, and management. Springer Publishing Company. 2008. pp. 115. ISBN 082610276X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  • One hundred questions and answers about breast cancer sensuality, sexuality, and intimacy. Jones & Bartlett Learning. 2010. pp. 72. ISBN 0763779091. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  • Karen Roush (2010). What Nurses Know ... Menopause. Demos Medical Publishing. pp. 141. ISBN 1932603867.

Slightly more dubious sources

[edit]

Fun article on Oprah and BHRT [30]. Not sure where to use it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

More recent ones

[edit]

Bioidentical Hormones vs. Synthetic Hormones

[edit]

Kent Holtorf, M.D., review of the medical literature demonstrating how natural hormones are superior to their synthetic counterparts. The conclusion is clear that bio-identical hormones are a safe alternative to Premarin and medroxyprogesterone acelate (MPA), marketed as Provera. The natural bio-identical hormones are very different from their synthetic versions, often having completely opposite physical and cellular effects. It is critical that women be given the information that these natural hormones do not have the negative side effects of the synthetic hormones and in no way pertain to the conclusions reached by the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study. Natural hormones are a safe and more conservative approach to hormone replacement therapy that does not carry the risks associated with Premarin and Provera. Premarin is made from pregnant horses' urine, hence it's name Pre (pregnant)-mar (horse)- in (urine). It consists of a combination of conjugated equine (horse) estrogens that are more potent and more carcinogenic than other natural estrogens such as estradiol and especially estriol. Postgraduate Medical Journal, a leading peer-reviewed publication for practicing clinicians, showed that non-synthetic or bioidentical HRT are associated with reduced health risks and are more efficacious than their synthetic counterparts. Conducted by a leading expert in hormone replacement, Kent Holtorf, M.D., medical director of Holtorf Medical Group Center for Hormone Imbalance, Hypothyroidism and Fatigue, in Torrance, California, the paper reviewed and evaluated results from more than 200 physiological and clinical studies. The review also showed that patients taking bioidentical HRT were less likely to experience sleep problems, anxiety, depression and cognitive effects - common side effects of synthetic HRT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD3A:5AF0:E97F:5010:A55B:505E (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there are lots of other sources and consensus statements showing that Holtorf's claims are spurious. We don't give undue weight to one practitioner whose practice is centered around prescribing bioidentical hormones. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you actually cite any article. If Holtorf's purported review exists, that would potentially be very strong, certainly far above "one practitioner's findings". I visited https://holtorfmed.com/what-we-treat and you could hardly call that "centered around prescribing ... hormones", though I get bad vibes from the glitzy site in any case and would not trust my body to any of their services. The present wikipedia article is in a dreadful state, dominated by voices opposed to the therapy in question, but as a quick check I looked at one citation, "The American Cancer Society also stated that "natural" and "bioidentical" hormones present the same risks as synthetic hormone replacement therapy such as heart disease, blood clots, strokes and an increased risk of breast cancer with long-term use.[52]" The reference is not to a PDF, but the (unscholarly) PDF linked from the referenced page (https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/CRC/PDF/Public/8579.00.pdf) makes no mention of "bioidentical" anywhere, and the only occurrences of "natural" are in the phrase "natural environment". I'm not surprised by the crap citation. I bet most of the citations are bogus or off-topic. Some unbiased, competent editor with a real interest in this subject needs to start from scratch. Also concerning the (potentially valuable) table comparing claims from the pro/con side, not a single entry on either side has a corresponding citation. Pathetic! At the end of the day, I hope anyone will begin with the sensible belief that (human) bioidentical hormones will be as safe or safer than foreign hormones from other species, or than synthetics, barring actual verifiable proofs to the contrary. Saegeas (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

[edit]

Change "A number of claims by some proponents of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy have not been definitively established through scientific testing." to "A number of claims by some proponents of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy have not been confirmed through scientific testing." Simonemcgill (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - agree that this is clearer. PianoDan (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

[edit]

Hello there. I am Deborah Moskowitz and I did not use the word "superior" in my review article on Bio-Identical Hormones. That is an extrapolation I did not make. Will you please correct. 2603:7081:7000:CAF3:78E0:D0F:173D:EA97 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Skimming through the article it does seem to be the case that it only suggests that some forms of bioidentical HRT might be safer, and I've edited the article to reflect this. However, as I mentioned in my edit log, I am not a pharmacologist, so I would appreciate if another editor could look this over for me. Uberlyuber (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bioidentical_hormone_replacement_therapy&oldid=1195531064"