1991
DOI: 10.1016/0020-7292(91)90649-p
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of transdermal versus oral hormone replacement therapy on bone density in spine and proximal femur in postmenopausal women

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
44
1
4

Year Published

1993
1993
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
7
44
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Clodronate provided an additional benefit for post-menopausal breast cancer patients. In fact, the clodronate-induced increase in bone mass was quite similar to that obtained on oestrogen replacement therapy after a natural menopause (Ettinger et al, 1987(Ettinger et al, , 1992Stevenson et al, 1990).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Clodronate provided an additional benefit for post-menopausal breast cancer patients. In fact, the clodronate-induced increase in bone mass was quite similar to that obtained on oestrogen replacement therapy after a natural menopause (Ettinger et al, 1987(Ettinger et al, , 1992Stevenson et al, 1990).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…After menopause, an imbalance between rates of bone formation and bone resorption, favoring the latter, leads to an accelerated bone loss during the first years after menopause (Garnero et al 1996, Clarke & Khosla 2010. This rapid bone loss can be prevented by estrogen administration, and characteristically results in an increase in bone mineral density during the first months of treatment (Lindsay et al 1976, 1980, Stevenson et al 1990. Additionally, the loss of testicular function also underlies bone loss in men.…”
Section: Sex Steroid Hormones Maintain Skeletal Integritymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although oral and transdermal estrogen have demonstrated their efficacy in preventing postmenopausal bone loss (4,16), both of them have some disadvantages: the significant intestinal and hepatic first pass effects for the oral formulation as outlined above and the large interindividual variation in bioavailability, variable adhesion, and local dermatological reactions of the transdermal route (17)(18)(19).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%