Tavi finally publish their study...

Also, if it is down to small sample size that they're not seeing improvements, you'd expect the trends to be in positive directions, which doesn't seem to be consistently the case. Again - what are the effect sizes? This is a lazy report, at best.

A very quick look at this makes me wonder about a number of areas. No data sharing, of course, which is a shame.

What did that letter by Biggs say? They're talking about sample size and type 1 errors a lot, but/so why are they not reporting effect sizes as well as statistical significance, to back up their arguments (if the effect sizes do indeed back up their arguments)?

This is an interesting sentence:
The differences between our findings and the previous GIDS study re change in psychological function may relate simply to sample size

From what I can see, the previous study (which presumably showed improvements in psychological functioning) used a clinician-reported measure (i.e., clinicians giving ratings based on their judgments). The measures in the current study are based on parent- and self-report.

The follow-up rate at 24 months isn't great, is it? Less than a third for most measures?

Its a pretty small sample, no?

Yep, and yet it's the most long term follow up they've ever done.

I can't actually think of another study explicitly on PBs in children which has better data. The more relevant ones are linked in the discussion at the end of this study and some of their limitations are highlighted.

Would be interested if anyone has a longitudinal study with bigger samples.

'44 patients had data at 12 months follow-up, 24 at 24 months and 14 at 36 months'

Its a pretty small sample, no?

And why would you want to suppress growth in teenagers exactly?

Yes, all these teen girls who are being 'helped not to grow boobs and have periods get the joy of living as a really tiny bloke.

If they'd been brought up in masculine culture they think twice about that grass being greener.

All the stuff about bone density loss, developmental delay and other adverse outcomes is already known. There is only one relevant new piece of data in there.

Young people experienced little change in psychological functioning across the study. We found no differences between baseline and later outcomes for overall psychological distress as rated by parents and young people, nor for self-harm.

In other words PBs have no positive effect on Gender Dysphoria. All those costs for no benefit.

This was actually released the very day after the Bell case concluded. It's the data they told the court wasn't ready.

What does "no changes in psychological function mean"?

It means they didn't feel any happier despite being closer to their true authentic self.

So the report says they didn't feel any better and that long term studies on the physical implications are needed. And this is a victory?

And doesn't bone mass usually increase greatly during adolescence, which is a good thing.

What does "no changes in psychological function mean"?

This is what Mermaids have tweeted about the study

This peer-reviewed paper highlighted that the majority of young people felt 'happier' and developed 'better relationships with family and peers once treatment had begun'.

Which isn't quite true. I think they need to look more carefully at the graphs and the study then go on to read the full report including this important sentence

"We found no evidence of change in psychological function with GnRHa treatment as indicated by parent report (CBCL) or self-report (YSR) of overall problems, internalising or externalising problems or self-harm."

So not better psychologically then? And why would you want to suppress growth in teenagers exactly?

The kids were 12-15 & apparently able to give informed consent. So precisely the age range the court considered would be unlikely to be able to give informed consent.