We have amended a sentence in the fourth paragraph in the Discussion section of the original version of this Article as it mistakenly conflated the authors of the Cass Review final report with the authors of the systematic reviews that informed the Cass Review. The original article has been updated in PDF and HTML versions.
We have amended the paragraph as follows with the corrected text in bold:
Another deviation from best practice concerns the composition of the review team. Both the Cochrane Handbook [43] and the Institute of Medicine [71] recommend including content area experts on the review team. The systematic review team did include “a former Clinical Psychologist at the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service” [24].Despite this, there is still a distinct lack of content expertise among the authors on many of the issues examined by the systematic reviews. Ideally, there would also be input to systematic reviews from those affected by the topic; there is evidence that this practice is becoming common [72].