mittimithai on Nostr: Did anyone read this report "Systematic Medical Evidence Review of Hormonal ...
Did anyone read this report "Systematic Medical Evidence Review of Hormonal Transgender Treatment Report" for Utah's state legislature? It's a big systematic review for "gender affirming care" and the authors come to the conclusion that GAC is good (in contrast to the state legislature which had banned it).
https://le.utah.gov/AgencyRP/reportingDetail.jsp?rid=636I know GAC is not good, but took a look at the report to try and see how the authors came to this conclusion. It's very long (1000+ pages, mostly paper summaries), and I don't want to invest that much time in looking for all the flies in the ointment...but a number of flies pop up immediately:
The report was late by 6 months. That's...odd....The report was commissioned by contract, people cut off their right hand to ensure reports are not handed in a minute late past a contract deadline. There are 5 instances in the report of the authors describing their "abbreviated timeline" as an excuse for any potential quality issues with their work. This is very weird.
>The conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data on the use of GAHT in pediatric patients with GD. However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have led us to the opposite conclusion.
What? Though many serious people knew for a fact that the evidence has always been very poor, the Cass report that cemented this fact was received quite controversially by "non-experts".
>We were not contracted to include a synthesis of the evidence that we found: only to assess [risks of bias] and provide evidence tables summarizing safety and efficacy findings. However, after having spent many months searching for, reading, and evaluating the available literature, it was impossible for us to avoid drawing some high-level conclusions.
...it is very odd for a report to discuss something that wasn't contracted for. Government contracting is usually quite strict, this type of writing indicates shenanigans.
They don't cite Cass (at least I can't find "Cass" in there). I do not know how a credible systematic review written after Cass wouldn't compare and contrast their findings to Cass.
I am not experienced in writing systematic reviews but I would presume this report should show some glaring deficiencies.
Published at
2025-07-08 20:54:31 CESTEvent JSON
{
"id": "a084b819c5b86855ee4c57204feb22478d7e957aac1db4e0338cf39e4899f605",
"pubkey": "697bd153cee9eadac8ea266d994aae71d37187d692295a084192b057b1698135",
"created_at": 1752000871,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://neenster.org/objects/b3b879ce-1b8f-4488-b4ea-19dd7bc396c1",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://neenster.org/objects/b3b879ce-1b8f-4488-b4ea-19dd7bc396c1",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "Did anyone read this report \"Systematic Medical Evidence Review of Hormonal Transgender Treatment Report\" for Utah's state legislature? It's a big systematic review for \"gender affirming care\" and the authors come to the conclusion that GAC is good (in contrast to the state legislature which had banned it).\n\nhttps://le.utah.gov/AgencyRP/reportingDetail.jsp?rid=636\n\nI know GAC is not good, but took a look at the report to try and see how the authors came to this conclusion. It's very long (1000+ pages, mostly paper summaries), and I don't want to invest that much time in looking for all the flies in the ointment...but a number of flies pop up immediately:\n\nThe report was late by 6 months. That's...odd....The report was commissioned by contract, people cut off their right hand to ensure reports are not handed in a minute late past a contract deadline. There are 5 instances in the report of the authors describing their \"abbreviated timeline\" as an excuse for any potential quality issues with their work. This is very weird.\n\n\u003eThe conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data on the use of GAHT in pediatric patients with GD. However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have led us to the opposite conclusion.\n\nWhat? Though many serious people knew for a fact that the evidence has always been very poor, the Cass report that cemented this fact was received quite controversially by \"non-experts\".\n\n\u003eWe were not contracted to include a synthesis of the evidence that we found: only to assess [risks of bias] and provide evidence tables summarizing safety and efficacy findings. However, after having spent many months searching for, reading, and evaluating the available literature, it was impossible for us to avoid drawing some high-level conclusions.\n\n...it is very odd for a report to discuss something that wasn't contracted for. Government contracting is usually quite strict, this type of writing indicates shenanigans.\n\nThey don't cite Cass (at least I can't find \"Cass\" in there). I do not know how a credible systematic review written after Cass wouldn't compare and contrast their findings to Cass.\n\nI am not experienced in writing systematic reviews but I would presume this report should show some glaring deficiencies.",
"sig": "2d5abbfa252f6a342644c562e098bbbcd41fc0e645890df7a8014a7f3a41e6bd076bdc1beb1c1bb303ad516f7818f22712c1ff63492f8e6cc49fd00f8876362b"
}
