4.5 Article

Quantitative efficacy of soy isoflavones on menopausal hot flashes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 79, 期 4, 页码 593-604

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12533

关键词

estradiol; hot flashes; menopause; model based meta analysis; soy isoflavones

资金

  1. Shanghai 085 Project of Higher Education Connotation Construction [085ZY1202]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [SYZ11056, ZYSNXD-CC-LCP, 2013JW19-A1-20140364]
  3. National Natural Science Funds [81303279]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimThis study aimed to quantitate the efficacy of soy isoflavones in the treatment of menopausal hot flashes. MethodsModel based meta-analysis (MBMA) was used to quantitate the efficacy of soy isoflavones. We conducted a systemic literature search to build a time-effect model for placebo and soy isoflavones in treating menopausal hot flashes. Studies were identified, subjected to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and reviewed. ResultsFrom 55 articles, 16 studies of soy isoflavones met the inclusion criteria, and contained 65 and 66 mean effect values in placebo and soy isoflavone groups, respectively, from about 1710 subjects. Interestingly, the developed model was found to describe adequately the time course of hot flashes reduction after administration of placebo and soy isoflavones. Using this model, we found that the maximal percentage change of hot flashes reduction by soy isoflavones was 25.2% after elimination of the placebo effect, accounting for 57% of the maximum effects of estradiol (Emax-estradiol=44.9%). However, a time interval of 13.4 weeks was needed for soy isoflavones to achieve half of its maximal effects, much longer than estradiol, which only required 3.09 weeks. These results suggest that treatment intervals of 12 weeks are too short for soy isoflavones, which require at least 48 weeks to achieve 80% of their maximum effects. ConclusionsSoy isoflavones show slight and slow effects in attenuating menopausal hot flashes compared with estradiol.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据