MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406156792 · doi:10.1007/s42000-024-00626-y

Patient-reported outcomes, provider-reported outcomes, and physiologic parameters after gender-affirming hormone treatment in Canada: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4406156792 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liam Jackman, Cynthia Chan, Micon Garvilles, Rakhshan Kamran

Bibliographic record

VenueHORMONES · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLCritical appraisalMedicineTransgenderMEDLINESystematic reviewCochrane LibraryScopusFamily medicineGender dysphoriaClinical psychologyAlternative medicineMeta-analysisPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Canada has experienced a ten-fold increase in referrals for gender-affirming care. Clinical guidelines emphasize the importance of a comprehensive and systematic approach to outcome measurement for gender-affirming hormonal care. However, research is lacking on the investigation of outcomes of Canadian gender-affirming hormonal treatments. METHODS: In total, five databases were searched, as follows: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL on December 26, 2023. To meet inclusion criteria, each study needed to be an original article including patients identifying as transgender or gender diverse (TGD) who were receiving gender-affirming hormonal care in Canada. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools were used to assess the methodological quality of the study. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for demographic information and a narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize outcomes organized for different treatments. RESULTS: A total of 3315 articles were identified, with 34 articles being included, representing 3990 patients. Physiologic parameters were reported in 62% of the studies and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in 50%, although only 32% utilized standardized patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). In studies reporting quantitative results, testosterone treatments showed 80% effectiveness in achieving desired physical changes, while several studies demonstrated that estrogen and antiandrogen treatments improved mental health in 85% of patients. The narrative synthesis of the results reveals positive outcomes and limited adverse effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy; however, it also underscores the need for standardized, consistent outcome measurement tools, particularly PROMs. CONCLUSION: The present systematic review highlights the need for standardized outcome reporting in gender-affirming hormone therapy, underscoring the need for measurement of the patient's perspective through PROMs. Resolving these issues can improve evidence-based practices and support high-quality, patient-centered gender-affirming hormone care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.294 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHORMONESSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207