Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital

Outcome Measures in Gender-Confirming Chest Surgery: A Systematic Scoping Review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review


  1. 3D Imaging Versus MRI for Measuring Breast Volume: What is the Evidence?

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftLetterForskningpeer review

  2. Effect, Feasibility, and Clinical Relevance of Cell Enrichment in Large Volume Fat Grafting: A Systematic Review

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Polyacrylamide Gel Treatment of Antiretroviral Therapy-induced Facial Lipoatrophy in HIV Patients

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Group authorships in Cochrane had low compliance with Cochrane recommendations

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of outcome measures in gender-confirming chest surgery.

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library to find studies evaluating gender-confirming chest surgery in a non-cis gender population. The systematic scoping review followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Data were charted for outcome measures including complications, reoperations, revision surgery, aesthetic outcome and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS: Our search yielded 849 records, which were screened on title, abstract and full text. Of these, 47 were included in the review. Feminising gender-confirming chest surgery was evaluated in 11 studies, and masculinising gender-confirming chest surgery was evaluated in 39 studies. Clinician-reported outcome categories were used in 40 studies and included complications, reoperation, revision surgery and aesthetic outcome. Categories of patient-reported outcomes were used in 29 studies and included aesthetic outcome, functional outcome and mental health parameters. The summary of outcome domains and classifications showed that there are large variations in outcome evaluation between studies. Although several studies reported on similar outcome categories, there was a high level of heterogeneity of domains and classifications of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of outcomes in gender-confirming chest surgery showed large variations in reporting, and further streamlining of reporting is therefore required to be able to compare surgical outcomes between studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors .

TidsskriftAesthetic Plastic Surgery
Sider (fra-til)219-228
Antal sider9
StatusUdgivet - 2020

ID: 58289054