MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047407225 · doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01510-0

Quality of life in people with transsexuality after surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3047407225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mehrdad Eftekhar Ardebili, Leila Janani, Zaher Khazaei, Yousef Moradi, Hamid Reza Baradaran

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKurdistan University Of Medical Sciences
KeywordsPsycINFOMeta-analysisQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineTransgenderScopusMEDLINEPopulationSubgroup analysisTranssexualSystematic reviewGerontologyDemographyDatabaseFamily medicinePsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several reports have demonstrated varying results on the quality of life (QoL) of the transgender population. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis about the quality of life (QoL) of individuals during the post transsexual surgery period. METHODS: We searched major biomedical electronic databases, including Scopus, Google Scholar, Psychological Information Database (PsycInfo), Web of Science, PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and ProQuest, for all relevant literature published in English up to December 2019. The included papers required to be cross sectional studies that reported quality of life in people with transsexuality post surgery. After selecting eligible studies, 2 authors extracted data of each study independently and resolved any inconsistency by consensus with the third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent research experts by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: In this study, out of 497 articles extracted from the initial investigation, 8 articles with 1099 patients were ultimately selected for meta-analysis. The pooled mean of quality of life in transsexual individuals was obtained to be 70.45 (95%CI 55.87-85.03) and 59.17 (95%CI 48.59-69.74), based on World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQoL-BREF) and The 36-item short form of the Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire (SF36), respectively. Also, the results of the subgroup analysis for the weighted mean quality of life in male to female and female to male showed that the mean quality of life in female to male was 57.54 (95%CI 42.24-72.84) and it was 62.47 (95%CI 45.94-79.00) in male to female, based on SF36 questionnaire. Moreover, the weighted mean quality of life in female to male was 69.99 (95%CI 43.76, 96.23) and it was 70.65 (95%CI 53.11, 88.19) in male to female, based on WHOQoL-BREF questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review may support the approaches to transsexuality that facilitates sex reassignment. In this review, the means of quality of life after surgery were not compared to the means of quality of life before surgery or even before hormonal therapy which was due to inadequate number of primary studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.039
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.386
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.135 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Quality of Life OutcomesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207