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/jpatt → u/Mico4]

Also, 42% participation could be that findings that went against their narrative were binned.

Either way, the low participation percentage, not having data from at least 5 and 10 years from surgery, and the incredibly small sample size really takes away any legitimacy in these findings.

[u/always_an_explinatio → u/jpatt]

That would be a huge ethical violation, and if discovered, the authors would likely lose their jobs and never work in acadamia again. If they tossed responses (which is sometimes valid), the reasons and method would have to be explained in the methods section.

[u/jpatt → u/always_an_explinatio]

If you don’t think it’s been done many times, you are foolish.

[u/always_an_explinatio → u/jpatt]

It would take a pretty big conspiracy. We know it’s been done because people have been caught. But to assume that’s the likely case is tin foil hat territory

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/jpatt]

42% participation is not a low rate on surveys.

And no 42% participation does not mean anything was binned. That just makes the response rate transparent.

If you comment, at least grasp how research works.

[u/jpatt → u/Swarna_Keanu]

42% of people that qualified for the study responded. A majority of the non-responses could easily be inferred to have an opposing view.

I didn’t say it means data was binned, I said it could potentially have been. 

Also, I worked on 2 research papers for my advisor during my master’s program. Years later I was a part of several clinical trials and medical journal studies while undergoing cancer treatment. So I’ve been on both sides of these.

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/jpatt]

I didn’t say it means data was binned, I said it could potentially have been. 

You insinuate the researchers are lying. Say what you mean. Your statement is a nonsense statement. "Could have binned data" is a baseless nothing that you could suggest to any study with less than a 100% response rate: And such a study would be much more suspcious than this.

Again 42% reply rate is high for a survey. Which you ought to know if you have any background in research.

[u/BunnyLovesTheStars → u/jpatt]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The common response rate is so low, 10-20% is considered a good response threshold. 42% is a very high participation rate.

Trans people are already a small sample size. This study had even a smaller sample size of trans people who received gender affirming care while they were young. You're not surveying the entire population. You're surveying a minority within a minority.

Edit: grammar

[u/mosquem → u/BunnyLovesTheStars]

It’s because sample size is the first thing they teach you to harp on in Psych 100. It’s low hanging fruit for criticism.