Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
I read with interest your recent news articles (1) on pharmaceutical
industry's attempts to handle the HRT controversy.
The language used ("With top quality randomised controlled trials
showing HRT causes harm ...") contrasts quite dramatically with that in
your previous, disappointingly unbalanced, pro-HRT Clinical Review (2,3).
WHIMS (4) now shows that HRT apparently increases the risk of
dementia - rough NNH 113 after 4 years therapy.
Isn't it about time the BMJ revisited the HRT debate, but presenting
both sides of the argument this time?
Yours sincerely
Matthew Grove
(1) BMJ 326; 31/5/03; p.1161
(2) Janice Rymer et al. Making decisions about hormone replacement
therapy. BMJ 2003; 326: 322-326
(3) Rapid responses to Rymer et al. Access from: http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7384/322#29565
(4) Estrogen plus Progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild
cognitive impairment in Postemenopausal Women. The WHIMS. JAMA
2003;289;p2651-2662
Competing interests:
I have been sponsored to attend meetings by Wyeth, and once received an honorarium from Lilly for lecturing on osteoporosis.
People who live in glass houses ...
I read with interest your recent news articles (1) on pharmaceutical
industry's attempts to handle the HRT controversy.
The language used ("With top quality randomised controlled trials
showing HRT causes harm ...") contrasts quite dramatically with that in
your previous, disappointingly unbalanced, pro-HRT Clinical Review (2,3).
WHIMS (4) now shows that HRT apparently increases the risk of
dementia - rough NNH 113 after 4 years therapy.
Isn't it about time the BMJ revisited the HRT debate, but presenting
both sides of the argument this time?
Yours sincerely
Matthew Grove
(1) BMJ 326; 31/5/03; p.1161
(2) Janice Rymer et al. Making decisions about hormone replacement
therapy. BMJ 2003; 326: 322-326
(3) Rapid responses to Rymer et al. Access from:
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7384/322#29565
(4) Estrogen plus Progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild
cognitive impairment in Postemenopausal Women. The WHIMS. JAMA
2003;289;p2651-2662
Competing interests:
I have been sponsored to attend meetings by Wyeth, and once received an honorarium from Lilly for lecturing on osteoporosis.
Competing interests: No competing interests