30-Second Takeaway
- Standardized outcome reporting for facial aging trials now exists and should be adopted.
- Pivotal device trials rarely integrate equity analyses, limiting external validity.
- U.S. insurance coverage for gender-affirming surgery is inconsistent and procedure-dependent.
Week ending June 20, 2026
Selected recent methodological and policy evidence affecting plastic surgery practice and research
Consensus core outcome set for facial aging trials established
A Delphi process with patients and clinicians produced a six-domain core outcome set for facial aging trials. Domains include treatment convenience, time to return to normal activity, focused area assessment at peak benefit, duration of effect, severity of persistent adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Authors recommend these six domains be reported in future randomized or controlled trials to improve comparability and meta-analysis.
Equity, diversity, and inclusion seldom embedded in pivotal device trials
Scoping review of 74 pivotal device investigations found basic demographics reported but limited analytic integration of EDI principles. Only 18.9% performed age subgroup analyses and 14.8% performed sex subgroup analyses; race/ethnicity appeared in 35.1% of reports. Explicit EDI framing in design occurred in 2.7%, and no study used CONSORT-Equity, limiting assessment of external validity.
Nationwide variability in insurance coverage for gender-affirming surgery
Policy review of 144 insurer-state policies covering 77% of the U.S. market found overall GAS coverage of 67.7%. Coverage varied widely by procedure: fertility cryopreservation 6.6%, facial feminization 37.3%, and GAS reversal 65.7%. WPATH concordance was 61.9%, and coverage, plus information access, was worse in Southern states.
References
Numbered in order of appearance. Click any reference to view details.
Additional Reads
Optional additional studies from this edition.