hrefna OP , 25 days ago Grijseels, D. M. (2024). Biological and psychosocial evidence in the Cass Review: a critical commentary. International Journal of Transgender Health, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2024.2362304 #CassReview Overall, this section discussing possible factors which have influenced the patient profile shows several issues in providing evidence to substantiate its claims. For several key assertion, single studies are cited when a wealth of contradictory studies are available, showing a lack of balanced consideration of the literature. This calls into question the robustness of the listed conclusions of this section (8.52-8.62), and any recommendations the Review makes based on these. All in all, this commentary raises numerous concerns regarding the biological and psychosocial evidence in the Cass Review. These concerns include inferring trends and causality about demographic trends and comorbidities within statistical substantiation, misrepresenting results from the literature, varying thresholds for the inclusion of studies and using unbalanced evidence or references to make one-sided claims. Together, these concerns call into question whether the Review is able to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its recommendations to deviate from WPATH’s international standard of care for trans children
Grijseels, D. M. (2024). Biological and psychosocial evidence in the Cass Review: a critical commentary. International Journal of Transgender Health, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2024.2362304
#CassReview
Overall, this section discussing possible factors which have influenced the patient profile shows several issues in providing evidence to substantiate its claims. For several key assertion, single studies are cited when a wealth of contradictory studies are available, showing a lack of balanced consideration of the literature. This calls into question the robustness of the listed conclusions of this section (8.52-8.62), and any recommendations the Review makes based on these. All in all, this commentary raises numerous concerns regarding the biological and psychosocial evidence in the Cass Review. These concerns include inferring trends and causality about demographic trends and comorbidities within statistical substantiation, misrepresenting results from the literature, varying thresholds for the inclusion of studies and using unbalanced evidence or references to make one-sided claims. Together, these concerns call into question whether the Review is able to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its recommendations to deviate from WPATH’s international standard of care for trans children