hrefna ,
@hrefna@hachyderm.io avatar

For those following the : I highly recommend looking into the specific studies they judged as "poor quality overall" as well as anything labeled "high risk of bias."

It's interesting to pull out those results and scan through them and also see what kind of peer review they had to go through.

So if we treat the analysis at face value then the obvious questions are "high risk of bias about what?" and "what would pass muster and an IRB?"
https://hachyderm.io/@hrefna/112266396098594639

hrefna OP ,
@hrefna@hachyderm.io avatar

The image is a summation of the following:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20220726_Evidence-review_Gender-affirming-hormones_For-upload_Final.pdf

So you can see in all of its glory what criteria they say they were looking at.

hrefna OP ,
@hrefna@hachyderm.io avatar

An example of what I'm pinging on:

Their quality assessment is based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale which they then converted to the AHRQ standards.

Which is fine… but that does mean that anything where cohorts are judged to be "not comparable" is automatically poor quality.

But they used a very broad scope to classify things in there.

For example, the one at the bottom of page 97 used a cisgender control group… but that didn't count as a comparator because they weren't trans

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •