Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 9, pp 914–919 | Cite as

Partisan Perspectives in the Medical Literature: A Study of High Frequency Editorialists Favoring Hormone Replacement Therapy

  • Athina Tatsioni
  • George C. M. Siontis
  • John P. A. IoannidisEmail author
Original Research



Unfavorable results of major studies have led to a large shrinkage of the market for hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in the last 6 years. Some scientists continue to strongly support the use of HRT.


We analyzed a sample of partisan editorializing articles on HRT to examine their arguments, the reporting of competing interests, the journal venues and their sponsoring societies.

Data Sources

Through Thomson ISI database, we selected articles without primary data written by the five most prolific editorialists that addressed clinical topics pertaining to HRT and that were published in regular journal issues in 2002–2008.

Main Measures

We recorded the number of articles with a partisan stance and their arguments, the number of partisan articles that reported conflicting interests, and the journal venues and their sponsoring societies publishing the partisan editorials.

Key Results

We analyzed 114 eligible articles (58 editorials, 16 guidelines, 37 reviews, 3 letters), of which 110 (96%) had a partisan stance favoring HRT. Typical arguments were benefits for menopausal and related symptoms (64.9%), criticism of unfavorable studies (78.9%), preclinical data that showed favorable effects of HRT (50%), and benefits for major outcomes such as osteoporosis and fractures (49.1%), cardiovascular disease (31.6%), dementia (24.6%) or colorectal cancer (20.2%), but also even breast cancer (4.4%). All 5 prolific editorialists had financial relationships with hormone manufacturers, but these were reported in only 6 of the 110 partisan articles. Four journals published 15–37 partisan articles each. The medical societies of these journals reported on their websites that several pharmaceutical companies sponsored them or their conferences.


There is a considerable body of editorializing articles favoring HRT use and very few of these articles report conflicts of interest. Full disclosure of conflicts of interest is needed, especially for articles without primary data.


hormone replacement therapy menopause postmenopausal women 


Author Contributions

Dr. Ioannidis had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.



Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Supplementary material

11606_2010_1360_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (52 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 51 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wilson D. Wyeth’s Use of Medical Ghostwriters Questioned. New York Times. December 13, 2008:B1 (Accessed on March 2010 at
  2. 2.
    Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:321–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Million Women Study Collaborators. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet. 2003;362:419–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hersh AL, Stefanick ML, Stafford RS. National use of postmenopausal hormone therapy: annual trends and response to recent evidence. JAMA. 2004;291:47–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watson J, Wise L, Green J. Prescribing of hormone therapy for menopause, tibolone, and bisphosphonates in women in the UK between 1991 and 2005. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:843–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ACOG Task Force for Hormone Therapy American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Women’s Health Care Physicians. Summary of balancing risks and benefits. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:128S–129S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mosca L, Appel LJ, Benjamin EJ, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women. Circulation. 2004;109:672–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Recommendations for estrogen and progestogen use in peri-and postmenopausal women: October 2004 position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause. 2004;11:589–600.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wathen CN, Feig DS, Feightner JW, Abramson BL, Cheung AM. Hormone replacement therapy for the primary prevention of chronic diseases: recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ. 2004;170:1535–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tatsioni A, Bonitsis NG, Ioannidis JP. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. JAMA. 2007;298:2517–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siontis GC, Tatsioni A, Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP. Persistent reservations against contradicted percutaneous coronary intervention indications: citation content analysis. Am Heart J. 2009;157:695–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Angell M. Drug companies. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004:251.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD, et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry: a proposal for controlling conflict of interest. JAMA. 2009;301:1367–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sniderman AD, Furberg CD. Why guidelinemaking requires reform. JAMA. 2009;301:429–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steinbrook R. Financial support of continuing medical education. JAMA. 2008;299:1060–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rothman DJ. Academic medical centers and financial conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2008;299:695–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ehringhaus SH, Weissman JS, Sears JL, Goold SD, Feibelmann S, Campbell EG. Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2008;299:665–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Podolsky SH, Greene JA. A historical perspective of pharmaceutical promotion and physician education. JAMA. 2008;300:831–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, Miller LG, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1742–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Relman AS. Medical professionalism in a commercialized health care market. JAMA. 2007;298:2668–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;295:429–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peppercorn J, Blood E, Winer E, Partridge A. Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer. 2007;109:1239–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vlad SC, LaValley MP, McAlindon TE, Felson DT. Glucosamine for pain in osteoarthritis: why do trial results differ? Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:2267–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ioannidis JP. Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials? Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2008;3:14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:101–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA. 2002;287:612–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Angell M, Kassirer JP. Editorials and conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1055–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kassirer JP, Angell M. Financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:570–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chren MM, Landefeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:284–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Healy D, Cattell D. Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:22–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA. 2008;299:1800–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altman DG, Chan AW. Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education and Practice. Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Eds. Report prepared by the Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press; April 28, 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Athina Tatsioni
    • 1
    • 3
  • George C. M. Siontis
    • 1
  • John P. A. Ioannidis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Department of Hygiene and EpidemiologyUniversity of Ioannina School of MedicineIoanninaGreece
  2. 2.Biomedical Research InstituteFoundation for Research and Technology-HellasIoanninaGreece
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical CenterTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations