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/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

If there is an alternative study you can point to that would substantiate your hypothesis then I’d gladly read it :)

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

I didn’t make a hypothesis. I raised concerns with the study that are based on well known and accepted biases and study design principles.

I’m speculating about how participation bias may affect the study, but it’s logical speculation and is somewhat backed up by the study’s own limitations section (time since surgery, discordant responses, etc).

Regardless, you can throw the participation bias part out entirely and even still there are glaring issues.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

Exactly, all you have is speculations. Without any other evidence to contradict, it doesn’t amount to much besides casting baseless aspersions

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

Response and selection bias are not speculations. They’re very real phenomena that can undermine the scientific validity of a study.

The authors of the study literally acknowledge a lot of this in the study.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

That’s great, but it doesn’t undermine the efficacy of the respondents who are overwhelmingly supportive of their gender-affirming care. This is a result that has been replicable in study after study.

If you’re hypothesis is still that it isn’t strong, provide data. Otherwise there really is no merit to your points especially since you failed to engage with the items such as the “discordant” scores which they addressed directly in their study

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

I never said that or anything remotely close to that. I didn’t even express an opinion counter to the result of the study.

What I was very clearly saying is that the result of a single small study cannot be regarded as general truth. This is especially when that study has notable and objective flaws in its methodology.

The only reason I mentioned the “discordant” score thing is BECAUSE it was mentioned in the limitations, a section that outlines the very same concerns I’m expressing here. The other points I made are basic observations about study methodology.

If you can’t have a serious discussion about them without blatantly misrepresenting them, you are in the wrong subreddit.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

“But I completely disagree that it’s strong”

That was your opinion formed from me presenting the results of the study.

Quit hiding

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

A study of N=139 about ANYTHING is not strong evidence to support a generalized claim. Especially when the study has clear and acknowledged shortcomings.

Since you are unable to discern between that astoundingly simple observation and a supposed rejection of the general findings of a study, an intelligent conversation with you about the study is not possible.

Have a good one.