stickygirl
All the witches
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Posts
- 22,930
Well finally...
THE Cass Review into trans healthcare – the UK and Scottish Government’s cornerstone document for reforming youth gender identity services – is “deeply flawed”, containing biased research, outdated data, and manipulated evidence, research by an international team of more than 20 experts has concluded.
The analysis of the Cass Review – conducted by experts from Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, Belgium, Australia, the US, and Canada and published in the BMC Medical Research Methodology journal – concluded that “significant” problems in the review’s methodology undermined the validity of its recommendations.
The newly published article in the BMC Medical Research Methodology journal comes to similar conclusions.
It found that, of the seven systematic reviews commissioned by Cass for her report, all seven had a “high risk of bias … driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions".
Concluding, its 21 authors state: “Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews and primary research that undermine the validity of the Cass report’s recommendations.
“During our review of the report and supplementary primary research, we found insufficient statistical rigor, unreliable datasets, claims presented without evidence, and misrepresentation of quotes from primary research participants.
“These flaws highlight a potential double standard present throughout the review and its subsequent recommendations, where evidence for gender-affirming care is held to a higher standard than the evidence used to support many of the report’s recommendations.
THE Cass Review into trans healthcare – the UK and Scottish Government’s cornerstone document for reforming youth gender identity services – is “deeply flawed”, containing biased research, outdated data, and manipulated evidence, research by an international team of more than 20 experts has concluded.
The analysis of the Cass Review – conducted by experts from Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, Belgium, Australia, the US, and Canada and published in the BMC Medical Research Methodology journal – concluded that “significant” problems in the review’s methodology undermined the validity of its recommendations.
The newly published article in the BMC Medical Research Methodology journal comes to similar conclusions.
It found that, of the seven systematic reviews commissioned by Cass for her report, all seven had a “high risk of bias … driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions".
Concluding, its 21 authors state: “Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews and primary research that undermine the validity of the Cass report’s recommendations.
“During our review of the report and supplementary primary research, we found insufficient statistical rigor, unreliable datasets, claims presented without evidence, and misrepresentation of quotes from primary research participants.
“These flaws highlight a potential double standard present throughout the review and its subsequent recommendations, where evidence for gender-affirming care is held to a higher standard than the evidence used to support many of the report’s recommendations.
