Skip to main content

Primary Research · 2017

Menaquinone-7 supplementation improves arterial stiffness in healthy postmenopausal women

Knapen et al. · Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 2017

Key finding

180mcg/day MK-7 for 3 years significantly improved arterial stiffness in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to quantify the time to diagnosis among women with endometriosis in the United States (US) and to identify patient- and physician-related factors affecting diagnostic delay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from August 6, 2012, through November 14, 2012. Respondents aged 18-49 years who reported a physician's diagnosis/suspicion of endometriosis within the previous 10 years were included. Endometriosis-related symptoms and diagnostic history were captured and summarized. Univariate analyses identified factors associated with time from symptom onset to first consultation and from first consultation to diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 638 respondents included, most (56%) reported seeking care for at least one of the following symptoms: menstrual pain (31.6%), nonmenstrual pain (27.3%), and pain during sex (7.5%). Most diagnoses (84%) were made by obstetricians/gynecologists; 49% of diagnoses were surgical versus 51% nonsurgical. Mean time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 4.4 years. Mean time to first consultation was shorter among women aged 40-49 years versus those aged <18 years (14.2 vs. 43.5 months; p < 0.0001) and those consulting for symptoms versus routine/other care (27.9, 24.9, and 28.4 months for menstrual pain, nonmenstrual pain, and pain during sex, respectively, vs. 61.4 months; all p < 0.01). Mean time from first consultation to diagnosis was shorter among women aged 40-49 years versus those aged <18 years (12.4 vs. 34.5 months; p = 0.0009) and those diagnosed by obstetricians/gynecologists versus nonobstetricians/gynecologists (21.5 vs. 40.3 months; p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Time to endometriosis diagnosis appears to have shortened in the US. Better patient and physician education regarding symptomatology may contribute to further gains.

Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.

Read the full paper

Cited in 3 guides

How to read a study like this

The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.

Who was studied, and do you resemble them?

Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.

What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?

A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.

How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.

'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.

Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?

Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.

Has anyone else replicated this?

Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.

Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?

Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.

About this page

Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.

The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →

Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.