學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
The Hormone Therapy Controversy: What Makes Reliable Evidence
內容大綱
For nearly two decades, the leading evidence on hormone therapy was based on findings from observational studies like the Nurses' Health Study. In 1985, researchers at Nurses' Health Study confirmed that postmenopausal women who took estrogen had lower rates of heart disease than women who had never taken the hormone. These influential findings helped drive the surge in hormone prescriptions in the 1980s and 1990s. But in 2002, in a stunning turnaround, researchers for a randomized clinical trial called the Women's Health Initiative reported that hormone therapy, in fact, increased the risk of heart disease and stroke among postmenopausal women. Almost overnight, prescriptions for hormone treatment plummeted. For millions of women who were either abruptly taken off hormones or denied treatment, though, the feeling of confusion and anguish remained. At the heart of the hormone therapy controversy was the fact that two different research approaches-observational studies and randomized experiments-had arrived at diametrically opposite results, once again raising questions about what constituted reliable evidence. Case Number 2005.0