McDeavitt Kathleen, Cohn J, Levine Stephen B
Menninger Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Twin Falls, ID, USA.
J Sex Marital Ther. 2025;51(2):175-199. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2025.2455133. Epub 2025 Feb 4.
The Cass Review's final report, published in April 2024, made recommendations to the UK's National Health Service regarding structuring of services for minors with gender-related distress. It recommended cautious use of hormonal interventions in this population and use of research protocols. Some clinician-researchers disagree with the Cass Review's recommendations and have written critiques. A critique of the Cass Review posted on Yale Law School's website in July 2024 has received extensive media coverage. Its references identified three other critiques. In these papers, there were multiple claims that were incorrect or that lacked essential clarification/contextualization. These claims involved (1) the Cass Review's contents and processes; (2) the pediatric transgender healthcare evidence base; (3) existing clinical practice guidelines, including claims that there is international medical consensus; (4) evidence-based medical practice and guideline development; and (5) conclusions regarding the validity of the Cass Review's findings. The Cass Review's careful, balanced investigations and judgments were a comprehensive, evidence-based response to the controversies in this pediatric clinical arena. Recently-published critiques of the Review have contained incorrect or inadequately contextualized claims. Because accurate information about medical interventions is essential to informed consent, it is important to correct errors in potentially influential publications.
卡斯审查的最终报告于2024年4月发布，就为有性别相关困扰的未成年人构建服务体系向英国国家医疗服务体系提出了建议。它建议在这一人群中谨慎使用激素干预措施，并采用研究方案。一些临床研究人员不同意卡斯审查的建议，并撰写了批评意见。2024年7月发表在耶鲁法学院网站上的一篇对卡斯审查的批评文章受到了媒体的广泛报道。其参考文献还指出了其他三篇批评文章。在这些论文中，有多项说法是错误的，或者缺乏必要的阐释/背景信息。这些说法涉及：（1）卡斯审查的内容和流程；（2）儿科跨性别医疗保健的证据基础；（3）现有的临床实践指南，包括声称存在国际医学共识；（4）循证医学实践和指南制定；以及（5）关于卡斯审查结果有效性的结论。卡斯审查细致、平衡的调查和判断是对这一儿科临床领域争议的全面、循证回应。最近发表的对该审查的批评包含了错误或背景信息不充分的说法。由于关于医疗干预的准确信息对于知情同意至关重要，因此纠正有潜在影响力的出版物中的错误很重要。
