4 ms·

> It seems like a decent amount of the evidence regarding puberty blockers was excluded for dubious reasons. To be precise, the report excluded studies of bloc

> It seems like a decent amount of the evidence regarding puberty blockers was excluded for dubious reasons. To be precise, the report excluded studies of blockers for not being blinded, in a recreation of the 2003 review of parachute efficiacy [1] Not that it's particularly consistent about any evidentiary standard, as they happily cite a "self-identified sample of 100 completing an anonymous online questionnaire" later on [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

profunctor 2y ago
Yes and to add on to that, the reason this decision is criticised is that it is very difficult or even impossible to properly blind a puberty blocking study. If you give people fake puberty blockers and then they start to go through puberty blockers they will be aware. Same goes for the reverse.
gresl 2y ago
> To be precise, the report excluded studies of blockers for not being blinded, in a recreation of the 2003 review of parachute efficiacy No, studies were excluded for being of poor quality per their rating on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, which is a tool used to assess the quality of non-randomized studies. You can see the review authors' scoring of each study here: https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669/DC5/embed/inline-supplementary-material-5.pdf https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2024/04/09/ar... Those excluded have a NOS total score of 4 or less and, as this table shows, a score that low is for multiple reasons including not having a representative cohort and inadequacy of follow-up. The review itself can be read here: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20...

4 ms·

> It seems like a decent amount of the evidence regarding puberty blockers was excluded for dubious reasons. To be precise, the report excluded studies of bloc

by strangecasts 2y ago

profunctor 2y ago
Yes and to add on to that, the reason this decision is criticised is that it is very difficult or even impossible to properly blind a puberty blocking study. If you give people fake puberty blockers and then they start to go through puberty blockers they will be aware. Same goes for the reverse.
gresl 2y ago
> To be precise, the report excluded studies of blockers for not being blinded, in a recreation of the 2003 review of parachute efficiacy No, studies were excluded for being of poor quality per their rating on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, which is a tool used to assess the quality of non-randomized studies. You can see the review authors' scoring of each study here: https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669/DC5/embed/inline-supplementary-material-5.pdf https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2024/04/09/ar... Those excluded have a NOS total score of 4 or less and, as this table shows, a score that low is for multiple reasons including not having a representative cohort and inadequacy of follow-up. The review itself can be read here: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20...