Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 490

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Studies in Transsexualism

Open access
Arcelus, J., Bouman, W.P., Van Den Noortgate, W., Claes, L., Witcomb, G., Fernandez-Aranda, F.·2015·European Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Over the last 50 years, several studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of transsexualism. The variation in reported prevalence is considerable and may be explained by factors such as the methodology and diagnostic classification used and the year and country in which the studies took place. Taking these into consideration, this study aimed to critically and systematically review the available literature measuring the prevalence of transsexualism as well as performing a meta-analysis using the available data. Methods: Databases were systematically searched and 1473 possible studies were identified. After initial scrutiny of the article titles and removal of those not relevant, 250 studies were selected for further appraisal. Of these, 211 were excluded after reading the abstracts and a further 18 after reading the full article. This resulted in 21 studies on which to perform a systematic review, with only 12 having sufficient data for meta-analysis. The primary data of the epidemiological studies were extracted as raw numbers. An aggregate effect size, weighted by sample size, was computed to provide an overall effect size across the studies. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The relative weighted contribution of each study was also assessed. Results: The overall meta-analytical prevalence for transsexualism was 4.6 in 100,000 individuals; 6.8 for trans women and 2.6 for trans men. Time analysis found an increase in reported prevalence over the last 50 years. Conclusions: The overall prevalence of transsexualism reported in the literature is increasing. However, it is still very low and is mainly based on individuals attending clinical services and so does not provide an overall picture of prevalence in the general population. However, this study should be considered as a starting point and the field would benefit from more rigorous epidemiological studies acknowledging current changes in the classification system and including different locations worldwide.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.04.005

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 490

Metadata

Authors
Arcelus, J., Bouman, W. P., Van Den Noortgate, W., Claes, L., Witcomb, G., & Fernandez-Aranda, F.
Venue
European Psychiatry
Published
2015-05-26
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
807-815
ISSN
  • 0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1778-3585
OpenAlex
W1957719093
Cited by
490
References
5
FWCI
7.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Studies in Transsexualism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.04.005
The paper
Arcelus, J., Bouman, W. P., Van Den Noortgate, W., Claes, L., Witcomb, G., & Fernandez-Aranda, F. (2015). Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Studies in Transsexualism. European Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.04.005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.