Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Register
  • Login

Urology Journal

  • Home
  • Instant Online
    • Instant 2025
    • Instant 2024
    • Instant 2023
    • Instant 2022
    • Instant 2021
    • Instant 2020
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • Submissions
  • Author Guidelines
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Instant 2021
  4. LETTER

February 2021

Confusion in Gonadal Dysgenesis Terminology Persisting beyond Chicago Consensus Statement on Disorders of Sexual Development Gonadal dysgenesis subtypes nomenclature

  • Seyyed Mohammad Ghahestani
  • Sara Karimi

Urology Journal, , 23 February 2021 , Page 6933
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i.6933 Published: 2021-08-25

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • References
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Abstract:

The terminology of gonadal dysgenesis conditions is considerably abstruse and variable. Despite some efforts in the 2006 Chicago Consensus Statement on DSD , it is still difficult to assign a category and name for some distinct conditions in this document. The rest of the literature has used redundant and variable words, e.g. partial, pure, and complete gonadal dysgenesis suffering equivocality and redundancy, aggravating this inconclusiveness. We attempted to highlight this problem and propose an easier terminology blueprint.

 

Abstract:

The terminology of gonadal dysgenesis conditions is considerably abstruse and variable. Despite some efforts in the 2006 Chicago Consensus Statement on DSD , it is still difficult to assign a category and name for some distinct conditions in this document. The rest of the literature has used redundant and variable words, e.g. partial, pure, and complete gonadal dysgenesis suffering equivocality and redundancy, aggravating this inconclusiveness. We attempted to highlight this problem and propose an easier terminology blueprint.

 

 

Keywords:
  • Sexual development disorder, gonad, dysgenesis, consensus, terminology, sex
  • Just Accepted/6933

How to Cite

Ghahestani, S. M., & Karimi, S. (2021). Confusion in Gonadal Dysgenesis Terminology Persisting beyond Chicago Consensus Statement on Disorders of Sexual Development: Gonadal dysgenesis subtypes nomenclature. Urology Journal, 18, 6933. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i.6933
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX

References

1. Bagci G, Bisgin A, Karauzum SB, Trak B, Luleci G. Complete gonadal dysgenesis 46, XY (Swyer syndrome) in two sisters and their mother's maternal aunt with a female phenotype. Fertility and sterility. 2011;95(5):1786. e1-. e3.
2. Rocha VBC, Guerra-Júnior G, Marques-de-Faria AP, de Mello MP, Maciel-Guerra AT. Complete gonadal dysgenesis in clinical practice: the 46, XY karyotype accounts for more than one third of cases. Fertility and sterility. 2011;96(6):1431-4.
3. Hughes IA, Houk C, Ahmed SF, Lee PA, Society LWPE. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Journal of pediatric urology. 2006;2(3):148-62.
4. Öcal G, Berberoğlu M, Şıklar Z, Ruhi HI, Tükün A, Çamtosun E, et al. The clinical and genetic heterogeneity of mixed gonadal dysgenesis: does “disorders of sexual development (DSD)” classification based on new Chicago consensus cover all sex chromosome DSD? European journal of pediatrics. 2012;171(10):1497-502.
  • Abstract Viewed: 216 times
  • Just Accepted/6933 Downloaded: 102 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors

Developed By

Open Journal Systems
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact
Powered by OJSPlus