Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for Postoperative Pain Treatment after Breast Augmentation: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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 www.springer.com/00266 .

Original languageEnglish
JournalAesthetic Plastic Surgery
Pages (from-to)219-228
Number of pages9
ISSN0364-216X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

ID: 58289054