Three years after scientists declared estrogen harmful to the heart, some say the hormone was unfairly maligned. Apoorva Mandavilli finds out why it's time to reopen the debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators. JAMA 288, 321–333 (2002).
Stampfer, M. & Colditz, G. Prev. Med. 20, 47–63 (1991).
Hulley, S., et al. JAMA 280, 605–613 (1998).
Clarkson, T.B. & Appt, S.E. Maturitas 51, 64–74 (2005).
The Women's Health Initiative Steering Committee JAMA 291, 1701–1712 (2004).
Harman, S.M. Climacteric 1, 3–12 (2005).
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Women's Health Care Physicians Obstet. Gynecol. 104 (Suppl.) (2004).
Author information
Author notes
Apoorva Mandavilli is Nature Medicine's senior news editor.
- Apoorva Mandavilli
Related links
Related links
Related links in Nature Research
Long-term hormone replacement linked to breast cancer
Related external links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mandavilli, A. News Feature: Hormone in the hot seat. Nat Med 12, 8–9 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0106-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0106-8
- Springer Nature America, Inc.
This article is cited by
-
Nanoparticles for Applications in Cellular Imaging
Nanoscale Research Letters (2007)
-
Reply to 'Hormone in the hot seat'
Nature Medicine (2006)
-
Failed prevention trials leave behind bounty of samples
Nature Medicine (2006)