1. Context
2. Objectives
3. Data Sources
3.1. Search Strategy
4. Study Selection
4.1. Quality Assessment
| Study | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Papadopulos et al., 2017 (10) | Cardoso da Silva et al., 2016 (35) | Castellano et al., 2015 (36) | Davey et al., 2014 (37) | Jokic-Begic et al., 2014 (38) | de Vries et al., 2014 (39) | Motmans et al., 2012 (40) | Vasegh Rahimparvar et al., 2012 (29) | Wierckx et al., 2011 (41) | Javaheri and Hosseinzadeh, 2011 (22) | Parola et al., 2010 (42) | Kuhn et al., 2009 (13) | Weyers et al., 2009 (43) | Newfield et al., 2006 (24) | Lawrence, 2006 (44) | Rakic et al., 1996 (25) | |
| Title and Abstract | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Introduction | ||||||||||||||||
| Background/Rationale | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Objectives | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Method | ||||||||||||||||
| Study Design | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Setting | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Percipients | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Variables | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Data Sources/ Measurement | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Bias | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | N |
| Study Size | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Quantitative variables | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Statistical Methods | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Result | ||||||||||||||||
| Participants | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Descriptive Data | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Outcome Data | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Main Results | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Other Analyses | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Discussion | ||||||||||||||||
| Key Results | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Limitations | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Interpretation | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Generalizability | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | N |
| Other Information | ||||||||||||||||
| Funding | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N |
| Total | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 17 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 15 | 14 | 17 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 19 |
Abbreviations: Y, Yes; N, No or unclear.
5. Data Extraction
| Study | Country | Year | Study Design | MtF or FtM Transsexuals | Intervention/Control Group | Mean Age, y | Instrument | Hormonal Status | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Papadopulos et al. (10) | Germany | 2017 | Retrospective study | 47 MTF transsexuals | Results were compared with normative data | 38.3 (18 - 57) | A standardized self-assessment test on QoL | Use of hormone cream | SRS was performed between 2007 and 2013. |
| Cardoso da Silva et al. (35) | Brazil | 2016 | Prospective cohort study | 47 MtF transsexual | 47 MtF before and after SRS | 31.23 (16 - 54) | The WHOQOL-100 questionnaire | 100% | SRS, hormonal therapy, and supportive group therapy |
| Castellano et al. (36) | Italy | 2015 | Case-control study | 60 transsexuals (46 MtF transsexuals, 14 FtM transsexuals) | 60 transsexuals, 60 matched controls | 39.0 (18 - 65) | WHOQOL-100 test | 100% | SRS at least 2 years ago and hormonal therapy |
| Davey et al. (37) | The UK | 2014 | Case-control study | 103 individuals with gender dysphoria (63 females and 40 males) | 103 individuals with an age and gender matched non-clinical control group | 36.4 (18 - 72) | SF-36 (version 2) | No use: 19 (18.5%); Current use: 81 (78.6%); Previous use: 1(1%) | All participants were involved in the treatment at one of three phases of assessment, real-life experience (RLE), or post-surgery”. |
| Jokic-Begic et al. (38) | Croatia | 2014 | Quantitative and qualitative self-report methods | 3 MtF transsexuals and 3 FtM transsexuals | - | 33.8 | The SF-36 | NR | SRS in the last 15 years |
| de Vries et al. (39) | The Netherlands | 2014 | Longitudinal study | 22 MtF transsexuals and; 33 FtM transsexuals | - | 21; 20.5 | The WHOQOL-BREF (quality of life measure developed by the World Health Organization) | 100% | At least 1 year after GRS |
| Motmans et al. (40) | Belgium | 2012 | Cross sectional | 77 MtF transsexuals and; 63 FtM transsexuals | - | 42.26; 37.03 | SF-36 | 58 (96.7%) in transmale and 70 (94.6%) in transfemale | Hormonal therapy and trans-related surgery were not in the year of the study |
| Vasegh Rahimparvar et al. (29) | Iran | 2012 | Cross sectional | 46 MtF transsexuals | 184 women | NR | SF-36 | NR | At least 1 year after GRS |
| Wierckx et al. (41) | Belgium | 2011 | A single center, cross sectional | 49 transmale | 976 Dutch males and 976 Dutch females | 37 (22 - 54) | Dutch version of the SF-36 | 100% At least 2 years before SRS | SRS between 1987 and 2009; All participants underwent SRS (hystero-oophorectomy and mastectomy); 8 years ago on average (2 - 22 years) |
| Javaheri and Hosseinzadeh (22) | Iran | 2011 | Cross sectional | 93 MtF transsexuals and 75 FtM transsexuals | - | 26 | Self-structured questionnaire | NR | NR |
| Parola et al. (42) | France | 2010 | A personality study | 15 MtF transsexuals and; 15 FtM transsexuals | - | SF-36 | - | Hormonal-surgical reassignment at least 2 years ago | |
| Kuhn et al. (13) | Switzerland | 2009 | Case-control | 52 MtF transsexuals and; 3 FtM transsexuals | 20 controls | 51 | King’ s Health | 100% | SRS 15 years ago |
| Weyers et al. (43) | Belgium | 2009 | Cross sectional | 50 MtF transsexuals | 766 females | 43.06 | SF-36 | 94% | SRS ≥ 6 mn |
| Newfield et al. (24) | The USA | 2006 | Cross sectional | 376 FtM transsexuals | The US general population | 32.8 | SF-36 (during or in the past 4 weeks) | 67% received testosterone | Testosterone therapy and/or SRS |
| Lawrence (44) | The USA | 2006 | Prospective study | 232 MtF transsexuals | - | 47 | 21-point Likert scale | 100% | - |
| Rakic et al. (25) | Yugoslavia | 1996 | A follow-up study | 22 MtF transsexuals and 10 FtM transsexuals | - | 26.36 in MtF transsexuals and 27.8 in FtM transsexuals | Self-structured questionnaire | - | - |
Abbreviations: GRS, gender reassignment surgery; FFS, facial feminization surgery; SF-36, 36-item short form; SRS, sex reassignment surgery.
| Study | Quality of Life |
|---|---|
| Papadopulos, et al., 2017 (10) | Improvement of QoL was experienced by 91% after SRS |
| Cardoso da Silva et al., 2016 (35) | After SRS psychological and social relationships improved and physical health and level of independence worsened. The environment, and spirituality, religion and personal beliefs domains did not change |
| Castellano et al., 2015 (36) | The QoL scores in transsexuals were similar to those of the matched controls |
| Davey et al., 2014 (37) | Individuals with gender dysphoria displayed higher psychopathology, and lower QoL and life satisfaction compared with controls |
| Jokic-Begic et al., 2014 (38) | 3 transsexual individuals had lower QoL |
| de Vries et al., 2014 (39) | WHOQOLa physical: mean (SD): 15.22 (2.49) |
| WHOQOL psychological: 14.66 (2.44) | |
| WHOQOL social relations: mean (SD): 14.91 (2.35) | |
| WHOQOL environment: mean (SD): 15.47 (2.06) | |
| Modarresi Fard et al., 2014 (45) | The results showed that from the QoL dimensions, physical health (P < 0.000), psychological QoL (P < 0.005), and the gender roles of patients were significantly different before and after SRS |
| Motmans et al., 2012 (40) | The QOL of transgender females did not differ significantly from the general Dutch female population, although transgender males showed reduced mental health-related QoL compared to the general Dutch male sample |
| Transgender females had a lower QoL than transgender males for the subscales physical functioning and general health, but better QoL for bodily pain | |
| Vasegh Rahimparvar et al., 2012 (29) | Mean total score of QoL was 69.98 ± 17.4 and 68.87 ± 15.3 in MtF transsexuals and controls (P = 0.594) |
| The physical pain was higher in MtF transsexuals than controls (P = 0.01) | |
| Javaheri and Hosseinzadeh 2011 (22) | Only 20% of transsexuals were highly satisfied |
| 10% had a good level of mental health | |
| QoL was 29.51 ± 12.41 and 36.445 ± 12.28 in MtF transsexuals and FtM transsexuals, respectively (P < 0.001) | |
| Wierckx et al., 2011 (41) | Transsexual males generally had a good QoL and experienced satisfactory sexual function after SRS. |
| Physical functioning: 85.9, role-physical: 83.3, bodily pain: 75.8, general health: 70.9, vitality: 62.1, social functioning: 85.5, role-emotional: 83.0, mental health: 72.6 | |
| Parola et al., 2010 (42) | SRS improved the QoL |
| FtM transsexuals had better social, professional, friendly lifestyles than MtF transsexuals | |
| Kuhn et al., 2009 (13) | It was significantly lower in general health, personal, physical, and role limitations in transsexuals |
| Weyers et al., 2009 (43) | Engaged females got physical and mental component summary scores similar to those of transsexual females not currently engaged, although engaged females got higher scores in vitality (P = 0.049), social functioning (P = 0.008), and mental health (P = 0.025) |
| Newfield et al., 2006 (24) | QoL and concept of health were lower among the FtM transgender |
| participants compared to those of the MtF population (P < 0.01), particularly in mental health | |
| QoL reduced among the FtM transsexuals compared to the US males and females, particularly in mental health and social functioning | |
| Physical functioning and physical health scores were higher than the general population | |
| Physical role and bodily pain in transsexuals were not different from those of the general population | |
| Rakic et al., 1996 (25) | QoL was significantly different before and after SRS. Interpersonal relationship was better after surgery |
5.1. Statistical Analysis
6. Results
Article search strategy based on PRISMA guidelines (46)


