The Cass Report (UK)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lynch101
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Report Uk
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Cass Report, authored by Hillary Cass, critically examines the state of gender medicine in the UK, particularly concerning children and the prescription of puberty blockers. The report concludes that existing studies on "gender questioning" children are methodologically flawed, leading to significant changes in NHS practices in England and Scotland. Critics argue about the exclusion of low-quality studies from the evidence synthesis, questioning whether this undermines the report's conclusions. The debate surrounding the report is politically charged, reflecting broader societal tensions regarding gender identity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of systematic reviews and their methodologies
  • Familiarity with the GRADE rating system for assessing study quality
  • Knowledge of evidence synthesis in medical research
  • Awareness of the implications of low-quality studies in research outcomes
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the GRADE rating system and its application in systematic reviews
  • Examine the methodologies of systematic reviews in gender medicine
  • Investigate the implications of excluding low-quality studies from evidence synthesis
  • Review the NICE systematic reviews related to the Cass Report
USEFUL FOR

Healthcare professionals, researchers in gender medicine, policymakers, and anyone involved in the evaluation of medical evidence and systematic reviews.

  • #31
After a Mentor discussion and the deletion of one somewhat OT post, the thread is reopened provisionally. Please remember the earlier caution in the thread to stay on topic in discussing this report. Thank you.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
dig6394 said:
This article explains multiple other issues with the review and I recommend reading it if you've read the Cass Review and are taking its findings seriously
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf
BMJ paper commenting on the Integrity Project paper linked above (McNamara et al) and another (Noone et al):
https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/13/archdischild-2024-327994.info

It's only five pages long. Highlights (IMO) are that the authors see McNamara's paper as effectively a legal position paper (not peer reviewed, but immediately submitted in court cases) and not an attempt at objective commentary, and that Cass is, if anything, too generous in her ratings of the reliability of studies (Chen et al, Tordoff et al) that McNamara suggests were unfairly excluded.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bandersnatch and pbuk
  • #33
Ibix said:
and another (Noone et al):
I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

"Who wrote the paper?"

"Noone et al."
:oldlaugh:
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
  • #35
berkeman said:
I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

"Who wrote the paper?"

"Noone et al."
:oldlaugh:
The Odysseus and the Cyclops resonance did cross my mind. However, I gather it's probably a variant on the surname O'Nuadhain, which means son of Nuadha (an Irish first name).
 
  • #36
Clearly nobody...er...no one...remembers Herman's Hermits.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
  • #38
Vanadium 50 said:
Clearly nobody...er...no one...remembers Herman's Hermits.
Noone does, I think.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50 and berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K