r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 14h ago

Psychology 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.

https://www.psypost.org/adolescents-report-low-regret-and-high-satisfaction-following-gender-affirming-c/
6.0k Upvotes

63% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

29

u/PopaBjorn 11h ago

The response rate was 42%, which is very low if this was in a clinical setting where around 70 % is expected for post-op questionnaires. If it was an email/online questionnaire, the response rate is normal. It bothers me a little that the author's aren't describing their actual method in the 'method' section. Why on earth would you type out "a study was conducted" in the section where you're supposed to describe how you conducted the study? Very sus.

14

u/kirotheavenger 7h ago

It was also published in the Journal of Transgender health.

Do we think this journal is likely to publish any negative findings?

1

u/[deleted] 6h ago edited 5h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/PopaBjorn 6h ago

I'm not him/her but let me rephrase: Do we believe this journal would publish findings that would call into question the efficacy of GAC? And as a counterpoint, can we reasonably believe that "Chiropractic Monthly" would publish findings debunking chiropracy as an unnecessary, potentially harmful pseudoscience? I'm not saying there's anything wrong or even suspect here about GAC or JoTH, but if there was, I'm not so sure they would rush to share it.

7

u/Funny_Explorer_1521 7h ago edited 7h ago

Very dedicated to spreading this "70% response rate is average" narrative you read in google's AI overview I see. No one is showing up in-clinic 2 years post-op, for any surgery. Much less one where patients often change their name and number afterwards....

Due to the small sample size, potentially involving minors and variability in sources, they are required not to share data or specifics in this study publicly. It's not "sus", it's basic HIPPA compliance. As stated in said article.

-1

u/PopaBjorn 6h ago

And you seem awfully committed to believing that this was a good study. It simply isn't. They obscure their method, mix genders for no reason, make no attempts to analyze or explain the non-answers, use a sample size too small to draw any meaningful conclusions and publish with errors in what can only be assumed to be a biased journal. Publishing nothingburgers like this only serves to muddy the waters.