The Problems With Utah’s Gender Medicine Review
September 4, 2026
Media source:
Learn More
In a commentary for The Well News, SEGM co-founder Dr Will Malone explains why the Utah Review does not meet the methodological standards expected of a systematic review. It excluded more than 60% of eligible studies, omitted important outcomes including fertility, detransition and mortality, and did not assess the certainty of the evidence — a core step in systematic evidence review.
When scientific reviews are used to inform clinical guidance and public policy, methodological standards matter — particularly in areas of genuine uncertainty and debate.
When scientific reviews are used to inform clinical guidance and public policy, methodological standards matter — particularly in areas of genuine uncertainty and debate.
In a commentary for The Well News, SEGM co-founder Dr Will Malone explains why the Utah Review does not meet the methodological standards expected of a systematic review. It excluded more than 60% of eligible studies, omitted important outcomes including fertility, detransition and mortality, and did not assess the certainty of the evidence — a core step in systematic evidence review.
When scientific reviews are used to inform clinical guidance and public policy, methodological standards matter — particularly in areas of genuine uncertainty and debate.