Horm Metab Res 2015; 47(05): 387-393
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1548936
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Disorders of Sex Development (DSD): Networking and Standardization Considerations

D. E. Sandberg
1   Department of Pediatrics & Communicable Diseases and the Child Health Evaluation and Research (CHEAR) Unit, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, USA
,
N. Callens
1   Department of Pediatrics & Communicable Diseases and the Child Health Evaluation and Research (CHEAR) Unit, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, USA
,
A. B. Wisniewski
2   Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, USA
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

received 23. November 2014

accepted 26. März 2015

Publikationsdatum:
13. Mai 2015 (online)

Preview

Abstract

Syndromes resulting in Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) are individually rare. Historically, this fact has hindered both clinical research and the delivery of evidence-based care. Recognizing the need for advancement, members of European and North American medical societies produced policy statements, notably the Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders, which recognize that optimal healthcare in DSD requires multidisciplinary teams in conjunction with networking of treatment centers and continued development of patient registries. This paper summarizes efforts in Europe and the U.S. toward creating networks focused on expanding discovery and improving healthcare and quality of life outcomes in DSD. The objectives and function of registry-based networks (EuroDSD/I-DSD), learning collaboratives (DSD-net), clinical outcomes research (DSD-Life), and networking hybrids (DSD-TRN) are reviewed. Opportunities for, and barriers to standardization in research and care are highlighted in light of practical considerations, for example, limitations in reliably classifying anatomic phenotypes and gaps in behavioral health staffing resources. The role of patient-reported outcomes is considered, with emphasis on integrating patient perspectives, given findings of limited agreement in outcome ratings by healthcare providers and patients. Finally, the characteristics of clinical centers likely to deliver the highest quality outcomes are discussed.