text_1: Hormone patch shows benefit over pill
text_2: "In 2002, the publication of the results of Women's Health Initiative (WHI) fundamentally changed how hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was used in the U.S. The study was halted early because of the finding of increased risk of heart attack, stroke, breast cancer and clots from HRT use. The reaction was a dramatic decrease in the number of women using HRT. This story reports on a study published in this week's Circulation showing that using estrogen in the form of a skin patch may not cause the increased risk of blood clots that is associated with the use of hormones in the pill form. This story does an excellent job of explaining the current study, describing other studies that have shown similar results, and outlining some of the problems with drawing firm conclusions from an observational trial. Furthermore, the story does an adequate job of describing the availability, novelty and harms of hormone therapy. Because the story quotes multiple, independent experts, the reader can assume the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. The story did an especially good job of noting possible conflicts of interest in researchers. However, the story should have quantified the risk of blood clots in absolute terms, not relative terms. The story states that ""women who took hormone pills were 4 times as likely to suffer a serious blood clot."" Four times higher than what? The story could have provided more context for the reader on these numbers by giving the actual risk of clotting from the pills compared to the patch."