Actual evidence from actual scientists.
[Image description: A patient holds bottles of medications for hormone replacement therapy as part of her gender-affirming care.]
Actual evidence from actual scientists.
[Image description: A patient holds bottles of medications for hormone replacement therapy as part of her gender-affirming care.]
this is basically a noise comment without commentary, and checking over your post history like half of your comments on our site are JAQing off about safe spaces and how you don’t hate trans people but we need to Seriously Debate transness. one of those comments literally begins with “Not condoning bigotry, but” and defends the health of seeing opinions from bigots. what are you doing here, and why should we not immediately eject you from the site
THANK YOU! This is why I joined Beehaw.
There is no practical way to blind HRT treatment. Even if you attempt to with a placebo, within about two weeks the patient will know what they are receiving.
Anybody demanding a double-blind study is trying to set the standard for evidence higher than is possible.
Exactly. Some things just can’t be studied as part of a double blind RCT. For example, see: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
The paper is funny, but the authors are making a serious point. RCTs are great when they’re possible, but just because they’re not possible doesn’t mean we can’t gather strong evidence anyway.
Thank you for that paper, that’s a great analogy honestly.
Thanks for that.
Lack of blinding is a serious issue for subjective outcomes but blinding when treatment effects are obvious to both intervention and control groups is dishonest (Pharma does it all the time to make their trials look more credible than they are).
Open label is the norm for cancer trials for exactly this reason. It is important to consider the biases that may arise, in subjective endpoints especially. But it is ludicrous to dismiss research on this basis alone. We can’t randomise 12 year olds to become lifetime smokers or not, let alone use placebo controls, but we do know that smoking kills. It’s just a bit more complicated to prove it when perfectly designed RCTs are not possible.
Yes, that sentence is in the original article. Did you have something you wanted to discuss? There are three studies in all in the article, so I don’t find cherry-picking a single sentence contributes much here.