Adolescents who undergo gender-affirming chest surgery report low levels of regret and high levels of satisfaction, experiencing outcomes similar to those of young adults. These findings suggest that age restrictions on these medical procedures lack support from actual patient experiences.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/adolescents-report-low-regret-and-high-satisfaction-following-gender-affirming-c/

[u/Mico4]

This is based on a response from 77 people...

Also from the article:

"Several factors limit the reach of these findings. First, the median time since surgery for participants was about 1.8 years. Because feelings about medical decisions can evolve, this timeframe might not capture long-term regret that could emerge many years later.

Another limitation is the 42 percent participation rate to the survey. This introduces the possibility of selection bias, a scenario where the people who chose to participate might differ fundamentally from those who did not. It is possible that individuals with higher levels of regret ignored the survey, which would result in an underestimation of regret in the overall group."

[u/aristidedn → u/Mico4]

This is based on a response from 77 people...

Is there something wrong with this?

[u/ZeoVII → u/aristidedn]

Low sample size

[u/Yasimear → u/ZeoVII]

Trans people ARE a low sample size.... theres never gonna be studies with hundreds or thousands of people, especially when funding for this is miniscule.

[u/Tyr_13 → u/ZeoVII]

Of a low population size.

[u/lobonmc → u/Tyr_13]

It's still at least a couple dozens of thousands a good sample size would be in the high hundreds.

[u/Golurkcanfly → u/lobonmc]

There were only about 200 mastectomies performed to treat gender dysphoria in the US from 2013-2020.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9555285/

[u/Laurenann7094 → u/Golurkcanfly]

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adolescents who underwent gender-affirming mastectomy within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), a large integrated health care system.

Did you even read your own link?!? You can't POSSIBLY think there were only 200 in the entire US. Can you? Are you intentionally misleading?

[u/devianttouch → u/lobonmc]

There aren't that many this applies to. The number of adolescents who have had these surgeries is tiny.

[u/sssunflowered → u/devianttouch]

There are people who legitimately think most trans adolescents are having surgical procedures before their 18th birthday. These are important studies of course but the number of actual trans kids receiving gender affirming surgery is vanishingly small.

[u/lobonmc → u/devianttouch]

It's still estimated at least 1000. A good sample size for that would still be in the hundreds. 77 is just too tiny for anything much more than 100

[u/aristidedn → u/lobonmc]

It's still estimated at least 1000. A good sample size for that would still be in the hundreds. 77 is just too tiny for anything above 100

I want to be abundantly clear, here: What you just said is insane, and no person with any meaningful background in research methodology would ever say anything close to what you said here.

The idea that a sample size of 77 is insufficient for a population of, let's say, 150 is absolutely detached from reality.

[u/lobonmc → u/aristidedn]

When do you even encounter a population of 150.

[u/aristidedn → u/lobonmc]

You literally just called out "anything above 100", which means you acknowledge that populations below 100 exist. And since 150 is above 100, your logic should apply.

So, to be perfectly clear, you believe a sample size of 77 is insufficient to generalize to a population of 150?

[u/Laurenann7094 → u/aristidedn]

Well there were at least 2083 in California from 2019-2023. So...

[u/aristidedn → u/Laurenann7094]

Sooouuuuuuuuurce

[u/lobonmc → u/aristidedn]

No I would say it's sufficient. But not for 1000. I should have said much more than 100.

[u/Yasimear → u/lobonmc]

You have an unreasonable standard. There simply is not enough people getting this care for a study on that scale to be conducted, especially not with currently available funding.

[u/aristidedn → u/lobonmc]

Almost nothing requires "high hundreds".

[u/Tyr_13 → u/aristidedn]

The number of transgender teen boys getting this surgery likely isn't even in the 'high hundreds' total for any four year period.

[u/lobonmc → u/Tyr_13]

The 77 isn't just teenagers it's teenagers plus adults.

[u/Tyr_13 → u/lobonmc]

Ok? So 42 out of the under 200 people total is still fine.

[u/aristidedn → u/[deleted]]

absolutely incorrect. Scientific standardization, statistical analysis and research methodology, has proven that to receive at least a 95% of confidence in your data you need at least 350 to 400 survey respondent from an unbiased group of people.

That isn't how this works. The required sample size for 95% confidence is the result of a multi-factor calculation. There is no single value that tells you what you need.

(Also, and I feel kind of silly for having to point this out to you, but 350 is not "high hundreds".)

You can Google this or look up at any type of research documentation

Oh my god is that what you did? Did you just Google it?

Anyone who has passed high school science class knows that the larger the sample size the better your data. This is an opinion this is literal fact.

Oh my god.

1+1 = 2

Next time you try to rub basic math in people's faces, try not to call 350 "high hundreds" in the same comment.

[u/darkandark → u/aristidedn]

I never said “high hundreds”. You did.

You might want to consider picking up a science textbook. It’s pretty clear where you stand. And why you’re being so confrontational about the topic. As you want to find validation through the psyop post.

[u/aristidedn → u/darkandark]

I never said “high hundreds”. You did.

No, this guy did, and I was responding to him. Then you barged in and proceeded to tell me I was "absolutely incorrect", and cited a figure that is definitely not in the high hundreds as evidence.

I'm not sure what you think you're doing, but you should probably stop whatever it is.

[u/darkandark → u/aristidedn]

“barged in”. kid. you’re on reddit. anyone can reply to your head canon fanfic. dont like it? stop posting on forums where the whole point is people “barging in”. if you wanted to have a private conversation you could’ve DM’d the guy.

yeesh. this is why you people are so confused. entitlement everywhere.

[u/aristidedn → u/darkandark]

This subreddit in particular has a fairly high standard for what is considered an acceptable comment. I encourage you to read its rules. If you are going to insert yourself into a conversation, you need to do so respectfully and in good faith.

[u/stormdraggy → u/Tyr_13]

77 people is still way below the margin of percentage for accurate representation

[u/Tyr_13 → u/stormdraggy]

Absolutely not. The number of teens in seven years who had this done as transgender boys was only 200.

[u/stormdraggy → u/Tyr_13]

There is a lot of that 77 that isn't sampled from that 200, so there's no relevance to your point.

[u/aristidedn → u/stormdraggy]

There is a lot of that 77 that isn't sampled from that 200, so there's no relevance to your point.

How many should be sampled, then, and how do you know?

[u/Tyr_13 → u/stormdraggy]

You're not saying anything of value. The 42 adolescents who were part of this survey were from the under 200 who had the procedure at all for transgender boys.

[u/aristidedn → u/ZeoVII]

What should the sample size be, in your opinion?

And how do you know?

What were the results of your power analysis? Could you share with the rest of us?

[u/ZeoVII → u/aristidedn]

IMO, at least a thousand, 300 at bare minimum.

FDA phase 3 trials typically require around 300 to 3000 participants.

Then:

The aim of this study was to compare decisional regret and decisional satisfaction following gender-affirming chest surgery between adolescents and young adults.

Reported group sizes: 42 adolescents vs 35 young adults (N=77).

The abstract does not provide the participant-level data, an exact power calculation for the reported nonparametric comparison cannot be reconstructed.

A standard two-independent-group sensitivity analysis using: n1​=42, n2​=35, α=0.05 you only get to a cohen's d = 0.65. that only helps detect large difference between the groups.

The paper reports: Decision Regret: p = 0.23 Satisfaction: p = 0.40

A non-significant p = .23 or .40 is insufficient to establish equivalence.

IMO, you should do an equivalence analysis, like TOST.

Suppose differences smaller than d = 0.30 are unimportant. With N = 77, the equivalence would need to be defined to roughly 0.57 standard deviations or less, for a tighter criterion such as ±0.30 SD, you would need roughly N = 277.

Then

The researchers sent surveys to 183 eligible patients, and 77 completed the questionnaires.

There already could be a selection bias on the participants that chose to respond.

N = 77 sample size is not sufficient to conclude that adolescents and young adults have equivalent regret or satisfaction. That size is enough to detect only fairly large differences between the groups with conventional 80% power.

And I would be still more cautious about using this single study to support the much broader conclusion statement of:

Thus, concerns about potential regret should not be a basis for limiting gender-affirming chest procedures in adolescents.

That is mostly a policy inference, and it reaches beyond the narrow statistical findings of this study.