You are here

Responses

Article menu
XML
Health services research
Original research
International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 21 October 2022
    WPATH Standards of Care: A new edition using outdated methods weakens the trustworthiness of content
    • Sara Dahlen, PhD Student King's College London
    • Other Contributors:
      • Catherine Meads, Professor of Health, Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care
      • Susan Bewley, Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics and Women’s Health

    The World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) new Standards of Care version 8 (SoCv8) have been published[1]. Like earlier versions, SoCv8 will be used to justify insurance coverage and medical interventions for gender minority/trans people.

    The Global Applicability section of SOCv8 refers to our systematic review (SR) of international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gender minority/trans people [2]. WPATH recognized the existence of a “wide range of valuable health care resources”[1](pS16), but appears to make oblique criticism about our SR[2] missing resources, especially seven references “that explicitly draw on expertise from regions outside North America and Europe”[1](pS16). We examined these:
    • Two could not have been included as they were published after our study - one password protected educational module[3], another single country guideline[4].
    • Three studies appear in our excluded full studies table (W3) with reasons[5,6,7].
    • An earlier version of one single-country guideline[8] also appears in W3[9].
    • The 2011 WHO guideline[10] and 2016 update[11] of the consolidated WHO guidelines[12] that underpin an implementation document[13] were already included. This implementation document[13] was not identified by key opinion leaders we contacted. Given it aligns with WHO guidelines (reproducing its recommendations, Introduction Table 1 pxix), it too would not meet the SR inclusion criteria.

    WPA...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.