未知的逆轉率：系統性回顧揭露長期數據中的關鍵差距

尋求性別肯定激素治療者中逆轉的普遍性：系統性回顧

Authors: Eva Feigerlova
Journal: Journal of Sexual Medicine
Year: 2025
Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39724926/

Summary

This review looked for studies measuring how often people who had asked for or started puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones later reversed course. It included 15 clinic, registry and insurance studies covering about 7,000 people. Most reported low figures, usually under 10%. But nearly all studies looked back at old records, used different meanings of detransition, and followed people for a short or unknown time. They also did not separate a change in identity from stopping because of cost, side effects or other reasons. One US military health study found about 30% stopped hormones within 4 years, a figure the review's headline range leaves out. The author concludes detransition has not been studied enough and calls for long-term studies that follow people forward. The ranges are best read as minimum figures from short follow-up, not reliable rates.

Key findings

回顧納入 15 項研究，涉及 3,804 名兒童與青少年和 3,270 名成人；14 項回顧舊紀錄，1 項往前追蹤人們，沒有對照組。
在任何治療之前，0.8% 至 7.4% 改變了要求；1% 至 7.6% 停用青春期阻斷劑；1.6% 至 9.8% 停用荷爾蒙。
一項美國軍方健康研究（Roberts 2022）發現，在 4 年內，19% 的跨性別女性和 35.6% 的跨性別男性停用荷爾蒙，遠高於回顧的主要範圍。
定義差異很大，從不再認同為跨性別，到單純超過 90 天或 13 個月沒有使用荷爾蒙。
停止的原因包括對認同的懷疑，但也包括副作用、費用、社交問題、達成治療目標和沒有持續治療；在一項英國門診研究中，12 名停止者中有 10 人原因不明。
整體而言，證據被評為極低品質，大多數研究追蹤人們的時間太短，或完全沒有報告追蹤情況。
回顧排除了對去過渡者的網路調查，因為選擇回答的人可能不具代表性。
作者的結論是，去過渡的研究還不夠，並呼籲制定共同的定義，以及進行及時往前追蹤人們的長期研究。

Abstract

Background: Despite recent evidence of the benefits of gender-affirming medical procedures, data in the literature indicate emerging demands of detransition and regrets while suggesting potential sources of bias in different datasets, including a nonconsensual definition of detransition. Aim: The present systematic review aims to summarize the existing research regarding the prevalence of detransition in transgender persons who requested or started receiving gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa) and/or gender-affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT). Methods: A systematic literature search (CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Sage Journals, Science Direct, Scopus) for quantitative studies was conducted up to May 2024. All eligible studies were assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. The present analysis follows the PRISMA statement for systematic review articles and the synthesis without meta-analysis recommendations. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the point-prevalence proportion of detransition events as a percentage in the population of transgender persons who were considered eligible for treatment or had initiated GnRHa and/or GAHT. Results: Fifteen observational studies involving 3804 children and adolescents and 3270 adult participants were included in the 3212 screened studies. Five studies reported a change in request before starting GnRHa, five studies reported GnRHa discontinuation, and nine studies reported GAHT discontinuation. The point-prevalence proportions of shifts in requests before any treatment ranged from 0.8-7.4%. The point-prevalence proportions of GnRHa discontinuation ranged from 1-7.6%. The point-prevalence proportions of GAHT discontinuation ranged from 1.6-9.8%. All of the included studies were heterogeneous regarding definitions of detransition used and the study design: their numbers were too small to be statistically relevant, their time frame was insufficient, they did not use patient-level data, or they did not consider confounding factors. Clinical implications: Quality measurement tools are needed, as are monitoring standards, and both are important for health outcomes and guarantee the attention of health care providers and policy-makers. Strengths and limitations: The unique features of this analysis are its restrictive inclusion criteria compared with those of previous reviews, such as a strict definition of detransition and a focus on empirical studies only. However, most of the studies were retrospective and unblinded, and most were not sufficiently powered to detect detransition rates. Conclusion: Taken together, the results of the present analysis show that detransition in persons undergoing gender-affirming treatment has been insufficiently investigated, highlighting the need for long-term follow-up studies.

Conclusion

This review provides the point-prevalence proportions of detransition among persons who sought hormonal treatments (GnRHa and/or GAHT). Taken together, the results of the present analysis indicate that detransition in persons undergoing gender-affirming treatment has been insufficiently investigated. Quality measurement tools are needed, as are long-term follow-up and monitoring standards. The present study highlights the need for well-designed prospective studies to evaluate the number of transgender persons experiencing detransition after starting GnRHa and/or GAHT and associated factors and to detect individuals at a greater risk of detransition. These data are important for health outcomes and to guarantee the attention of health care providers and policy makers.

Methodological limitations

Only one reviewer: One researcher found, read and rated all the studies. The author admits this raises the risk of mistakes and bias compared with the usual two reviewers.
Headline range leaves out the highest figure: The 1.6% to 9.8% hormone range does not reflect Roberts et al. (2022), which is in the review. It found about 30% (19% of trans women, 35.6% of trans men) stopped hormones within 4 years in the US military health system. A gap in prescriptions is not always detransition, but the same is true of other studies in the review.
Very weak studies: 14 of 15 studies looked back at old records, mostly without any blinding, and the overall evidence was rated very low quality.
Short or unknown follow-up: Most studies followed people only briefly, but detransition often happens years later (in one Finnish clinic study, regret came after 7 years on average). So the figures are likely too low.
Different definitions: Detransition ranged from no longer identifying as trans to a 90-day gap in prescriptions. So the ranges lump together different things.
Clinics miss many cases: Studies only count people known to their clinic or insurer. Surveys suggest many detransitioners never tell their original clinic, and the review does not adjust for this.
Reasons often unknown: Several studies did not record why people stopped (for example, 10 of 12 in Hall 2021). So stopping because of identity cannot be separated from stopping for other reasons.
Second-hand data: Five studies used existing datasets or reports rather than individual patient records, and in seven it was unclear exactly what was measured.
Surveys left out: Online detransitioner surveys were excluded as biased. That is reasonable, but it leaves out the main source of information on why people who left clinic care stopped, and what they went through.
Very different groups combined: Children, teens and adults, and different countries' treatment rules, are mixed together. Sex and age could not be worked out for many studies.
Framing goes beyond the data: The review opens by citing 'recent evidence of the benefits' and says detransition 'appears to be rare'. These claims are stronger than its own very weak data can support.

detrans.ai

Summary

Key findings

Abstract

Conclusion