ArticleTransgender health2026
Rescue Antiemetic Treatments Following Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Matched Cohort Study.
Article in Transgender health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In this study, we compare the use of rescue antiemetics in transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) patients undergoing gender-affirming surgical procedures with cisgender patients undergoing matching procedures. Methods: TGD patients undergoing facial feminization, genitourinary, or chest procedures between 2018 and 2023 were matched to cisgender men and women controls (only women for chest/breast procedures) using age, smoking status, surgical duration, and year of surgery to compare the use of rescue antiemetics in the postanesthesia recovery room. Analyses were performed using generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimates to assess whether TGD patients' risk for receiving rescue antiemetics differed from matched cisgender controls. Results: We identified 397 TGD patients assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 194 TGD patients assigned female at birth (AFAB) undergoing gender-affirming surgery. Regardless of gender identity, AFAB patients received more prophylactic antiemetics than AMAB patients. Both unadjusted and adjusted (for patient and procedural variables) analyses failed to find evidence that the need for rescue antiemetics differed between matched cisgender and TGD patients ( Conclusion: When compared to matched cisgender controls, TGD patients undergoing gender-affirming procedures did not have a higher risk of needing postoperative rescue antiemetic therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.