23. Chen Yu.-M., Ho S., Lam S. et al. Soy isoflavones have a favorable effect on bone loss in Chinese postmenopausal women with lower bone mass: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial // J. clin. Endocr. 2003. Vol. 88. 10. P. 4710-4747.
24. Christiansen C, Christiansen M., Transbol J. Bone mass in postmenopausal women after withdrawal of oestrogen/gestagen replacement therapy // Lancet. 1981. Febr. 28. P. 459-461.
25. Delmas P. D., Ensrud K. E., Adachi J. D. et al. Efficacy of raloxifene on vertebral fracture risk reduction in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: Four year results from a randomised clinical trial // J. clin. Endocr. 2002. Vol. 87. 8. P. 3609-3617.
26. The climacteric and osteoporosis. Materials to forthcoming symposia / Ed. Notelovitz // Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1987. Vol. 30. 4. P. 787-884.
27. Hagen C, Christiansen M., Christiansen C. etal. Effects of two-year estrogen-gestagen replacement on climacteric symptoms and gonadotropins in the early postmenopausal periods // Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 1982. Vol. 61. 2. P. 237-241.
28. Han R., Soares J., Haidar M. et al. Benefits of soy isoflavone therapeutic regimen on menopausal symptoms // Obstet. Gynecol. 2002. Vol. 99. P. 389-394.
29. Heikkinnen J., Vaheri R., Ahomdki S. et al. Optimizing continuous-combined hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women: A comparison of six different treatment regimens // Amer. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000. Vol. 182. 3. P. 560-567.
30. Heikkinnen J., Vaheri R., Timonen U. Long-term safety and toler-ability of continuous-combined hormone therapy in postmenopausal women: results from a seven-year randomised comparison of low and standard doses // J. Br. Menopause Soc. 2004. Vol. 10. 3. P. 95-102.
31. Johannisson E., Landgren ., Diczfalusy E. Endometrial and vaginal response to three different estrogen preparations administered by the transdermal and oral routes // Maturitas. 1988. Vol. 10. 3. P. 181-192.
32. Knekt P., Kumpulainen J., Jarvinen R. et al. Flavonoid intake and risk of chronic diseases //Amer. J. Clin. Nutrition. 2002. Vol. 76. 3. P. 560-568.
33. Kupperman H., Wetchler ., Blatt M. Contemporary therapy of the menopausal syndrome // J.A.M.A. 1959. Vol. 171. 12. P. 103-112, 1627-1637.
34. Kurzer M. Phytoestrogen supplement use by women // J. Nutrition. 2003. Vol. 133 (Suppl.). P. 1983-1986.
35. Mignot M,, Schoemaker J., Kreingold M. et al. // Europ. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1989. Vol. 30. 1. P. 59-72.
36. Modelska K., Cummings S. Tibolone for postmenopausal women: Systematic review of randomized trials // J. clin. Endocr. 2002. Vol. 87. P. 16-23.
37. Nagata C, Takatsuka N., Shimitzu H. Soy and fish oil intake and mortality in a Japanese communities // Amer. J. Epidemiol. 2002. Vol. 156. 9. P. 824-831.
38. Neven P., Quail D., Levrier M. et al. Uterine effects of estrogen plus progestin therapy and reloxifene: adjudicated results from the EURALOX study // Obstet. Gynecol. 2004. Vol. 105. 5. P. 881-891.
|
|
39. Rymer J., Wilson R., Ballard K. Making decisions about hormone replacement therapy // BMJ. 2003. Vol. 326. 7384. P. 322-337.
40. ScalbertA., Williamson G. Dietary intake and bioavailability of polyphenols // J. Nutrition. 2000. Vol. 130 (Suppl.). P. 2073-2085.
41. Tepper R., Neri A., Kaufman N. et al. Menopausal hot flashes and plasma P-endorphins // Obstet. Gynecol. 1987. Vol. 70. 2. P. 150-152.
42. Wells M., Sturdee D., Barlow D. et al. Effect on endometrium of long term treatment with continuous combined estrogen-progestogen replacement therapy: follow-up study // BMJ. 2002. Vol. 325. P. 239-251.
43. Writing Group for the WHI Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women // J.A.M.A. 2002. Vol. 288. P. 321-333.
44. Zhan S., Ho S. Meta-analysis of the effects of soy protein containing isoflavones on the Upid profile //Amer. J. Clin. Nutrition. 2005. Vol. 81. 2. P. 397-408.
6
, . (1976), , , . , , , , , .
:
, , ;
, ;
.
, , , [1].
6.
, , , .
. 0 1970-1974 . 4,4 % , PUBMED 2000-2003 . [19]. , 1980-1997 . 0,63 4,2 %, 1,5 8,2 %, 0,34 3,6 %. .
|
|
() -, , . , , . SF-36 (SF-36 Health Status Survey), 2. , - (. -). , , . . 36 8 , . 0 100, 100 [27].
SF-36 . / , , , - (Nottingham Health Profile NHP). . 38 , /, 6 (, , , , ); 7 , / . NHP . ( 0 100). SF-36 NHP . , SF-36 , , . NHP , .
, WHOQOL-BREF, 26 . 23 , , 11 830 [22]. 4 , , , .
/ -
6.
, , [9].
|
|
, , . , , . , . , , , . .
:
1) 18 45 ;
2) , - 6 . 6 . / ;
3) , , - / - , .
:
1) 21 -;
2) , ;
3) , .
, 4 , 2 , 2 10 . , 1-5 . , 5 - / 5 . 182 8 : (47), (43), (22), (15), (13 ), (15 ), (15 ) .
. , , . 100 , 5- . 5 . 275 128 , , , 100 .
|
|
( ) 26 , 5 : (8), (5), (5), (4) (4 ). , , . , 2- ,
6.
. , .
, . , -, , , , [15]. . , SF-36, ( ), , , .
, , .
, , 6 . , . , , . , , .
, . , .
, , . 1999 . . , , , . , , , 1254 , . , . , , , , . 5- ( , , , ) . 577 2080 ( 45 ) ( , ) . 33 % , 7 % , . 39 (7 %) , .. 6 , ( ) 2 . , 37 577 . - -
|
|
.
. , , , . , , , , . , , , . , , . , 15 % 1850 , [25].
, SF-36, . , , , , , , [20]. , , , .
, .
( , , , , , ) 66,5 % , - (90%), (82,1 %) (82,9%) [5]. - 2 , . , 96,8% , 3,1 % , 4,2 % , .
, , 90- . [6, 8]. , 273 SF-36, 6 . , , . , SF-36 ( ) . , .
: 25 , 87 30 5 , -
6.
, , . , , , . , [15].
, 120 , SF-36 () . 2 4 . . ( ) , , ( < 0,0001) [18]. , , [3].
. , , , . , . , , , , . ( ) , , , -
. , .
8 SF-36 ( < 0,01), 2- . , , 5 8 / SF-36 7 8 - . .
, .
, 287 , , , . 28 , , . 60 , , .
, . > 25 4- , 10- ,
6.
. , ( = 0,06). , , , , , , . , , , ( = 0,03), , , ( = 0,01). , , , , , , . , -, , . . , , [16].