Podcast Summary
LinkedIn for Small Business Hiring and CAS Review Controversy: LinkedIn offers a large pool of potential candidates for small businesses. The CAS review on gender identity services for children faced controversy, with limited research and weak evidence leading to the NHS in England halting prescription of puberty blockers.
LinkedIn is an effective platform for small businesses looking to hire professionals, as it hosts a large number of users who may not be actively seeking new jobs but could still be open to the right opportunity. Additionally, the review of gender identity services for children and young people in England, known as the CAS review, has been met with controversy, with some claiming that the review ignored 98% of available evidence. However, the review found a lack of research and weak evidence on medical interventions in this area, leading to the NHS in England stopping the prescription of puberty blockers unless part of a research project. It's important to consider multiple sources and perspectives when evaluating complex issues. For small business owners looking to hire, LinkedIn can be a valuable resource, while the CAS review remains a topic of ongoing debate.
Misconception about dismissed evidence on trans young people's treatments: Despite claims suggesting 98% of evidence was disregarded, only 2% was deemed high quality but nearly 60% were included in the analysis, and not just randomized control trials were considered.
The claim that 98% of the evidence on trans young people and their use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments was dismissed or ignored during an NHS review is incorrect. Doctor Hilary Cass, who chaired the review, commissioned systematic reviews at the University of York to evaluate all existing research. Only 2% of the studies were deemed high quality, but this does not mean the other 98% were discarded. Instead, nearly 60% of the studies were included in the analysis, which were considered moderate quality. The criticism that only one type of study, double-blind randomized control trials, was accepted is not accurate as these trials are difficult to conduct in this context due to the obvious nature of the treatments. The reviews did not impose impossible criteria and considered various types of studies in their analysis.
Assessing study quality in the absence of randomized trials: Use the Newcastle Ottawa scale to evaluate nonrandomized studies for factors like participant selection, group comparability, and outcome assessment. Exclude low-quality studies to ensure trustworthy and reliable results.
When conducting research, especially in the absence of randomized controlled trials, it's crucial to assess study quality using appropriate tools and methods. Professor Katherine Hewitt and her team at York University found a lack of randomized trials in their field of study, so they used the Newcastle Ottawa scale to evaluate nonrandomized studies instead. This scale considers factors like how participants were selected, group comparability, and outcome assessment. High-quality studies account for differences between groups and have long-term follow-up, while low-quality studies may lack essential information or report incompletely. For instance, a low-quality study focusing on birth-registered females in a single American clinic lacked data on participants not involved and the data collection process. This missing information increased the risk of skewed results, leading the team to exclude such studies from their analysis. By using a standard system to assess quality and removing the lowest-quality studies, researchers can ensure their results are trustworthy and reliable.
Call for more research on transgender youth treatments: Professor Cass advocates for more and better quality research on transgender youth treatments due to the current weak evidence base, emphasizing the importance of protecting young people from potential risks and misinformation.
The evidence base for many treatments for transgender youth is uniquely poor, with many studies not following young people long enough to understand the full impact on their health. Dr. Hilary Cass, a professor of child health, argues that this means young people are being subjected to potentially risky treatments based on weak evidence. She emphasizes that this is unacceptable, especially since adults spreading misinformation about these treatments can put young people at risk. It's important to remember that not every young person will experience negative effects from these treatments, but we need more data to fully understand the risks and benefits. The idea that 98% of research was thrown out was based on a misinterpretation of the report's findings. Instead, the report highlighted the need for more and better quality research to ensure that transgender youth receive the best possible care.
Two BMJ reviews highlight the need for more research on interventions for gender dysphoria in young people: Despite media attention, the evidence base for interventions for gender dysphoria in young people is not clear-cut, emphasizing the need for more and better quality research.
The evidence base for the effectiveness and safety of interventions for gender dysphoria in young people is not as strong as previously thought. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published two systematic reviews that received significant media attention, leading to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The earliest mentions came from critics who jumped to conclusions based on a press release that did not adequately convey the nuances of the research. The reviews included only a few high-quality studies, but many moderate-quality studies as well. The editor in chief of the BMJ, Kamran Abbasi, acknowledged that the evidence is problematic and that the press release should have emphasized this point more clearly. While the full papers were available for those who wanted to delve deeper, the important message got lost in the noise. Ultimately, the findings underscore the need for more and better quality research to inform clinical practice and public policy regarding interventions for gender dysphoria in young people.
CAS Review: Not Overlooking 60% of Relevant Research: The CAS review did not overlook 98% of relevant research as previously stated, but around 60% was deemed high quality and used to form conclusions, while approximately 40% was considered low quality and not included.
While the CAS review did not overlook 98% of relevant research as previously stated, around 60% of the research was deemed high quality and used to form the conclusions. However, approximately 40% of the research was considered low quality and was not included. It's essential to recognize that not all research is created equal, and the systematic reviews used by CAS applied rigorous standards to ensure the validity and reliability of the studies they included. This approach is crucial to ensuring evidence-based recommendations and conclusions. Additionally, during the podcast, there were mentions of various topics, including flexible health insurance plans offered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Plans, and the importance of celebrating life's special occasions with 1800flowers.com. While these topics are interesting, they are not directly related to the primary discussion about the CAS review. In conclusion, the CAS review did not overlook the vast majority of relevant research, but it's important to understand that not all research is created equal, and only high-quality studies are used to form conclusions. As always, if you have any questions or if there's a specific number you'd like us to look at, feel free to reach out to us at moreorless@bbc.co.uk. Until next week, goodbye!
