Seen the “98% of studies were ignored!” one doing the rounds on social media. The editorial in the BMJ put it in much better terms:

“One emerging criticism of the Cass review is that it set the methodological bar too high for research to be included in its analysis and discarded too many studies on the basis of quality. In fact, the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret.”

  • streetlights@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Again, you really need to feed this startling discovery back to the medical community which has been using NOS for over 20 years. What a scandal.

    • Cogency@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      No the medical community largely respects the short comings and uses of the Ottawa protocol. That’s what made Class’s report so insulting.

      • streetlights@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Blimey, you’re speaking for the medical community itself as a whole now, pray tell then why haven’t they binned every systematic review ever carried out using the NOS system?

        Why after 20 years of use is this system only being rubbished after two reviews into gender affirming healthcare in the UK were published?

        Why are you the only person complaining about the Newcastle-Ottawa system when everyone else online is making up lies like “98% of data was dismissed”?