ArticleJournal of pediatric urology2017
Variation in the clinical and genetic evaluation of undervirilized boys with bifid scrotum and hypospadias.
Article in Journal of pediatric urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- ARM in ARM? Investigating the co-occurrence of anorectal malformations and labioscrotal anomalies.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Pooled it
- Genetic Susceptibility and Pathogenesis of Hypospadias.Biochemical genetics · 2026Review
- Single-stage Reconstruction of Bifid Scrotum and Penoscrotal Transposition without Hypospadias and Chordee with Modified Glenn-Anderson Technique: A Case Report.Journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Sonographic evaluation of fetal scrotum, testes and epididymis.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBifid scrotum and hypospadias can be signs of undervirilization, yet boys presenting with these findings often do not undergo genetic evaluation. In some cases, identifying an underlying genetic diagnosis can help to optimize clinical care and improve guidance given to patients and families.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to characterize current practice for genetic evaluation of patients with bifid scrotum, and to identify approaches with a good diagnostic yield.
methodsA retrospective study of the Boston Children's Hospital electronic medical records (1993-2015) was conducted using the search term "bifid scrotum" and clinical data were extracted. Data were abstracted into a REDCap database for analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, SAS, and Excel software.
resultsThe search identified 110 subjects evaluated in the Urology and/or Endocrinology clinics for bifid scrotum. Genetic testing (including karyotype, microarray, or targeted testing) was performed on 64% of the subjects with bifid scrotum; of those tested, 23% (15% of the total cohort of 110 subjects) received a confirmed genetic diagnosis. Karyotype analysis, when performed, led to a diagnosis in 17% of patients. Of the ten instances when androgen receptor gene sequencing was performed, a pathogenic mutation was identified 20% of the time.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that the majority of individuals with moderate undervirilization resulting in bifid scrotum do not receive a genetic diagnosis. Over a third of the analyzed subjects did not have any genetic testing, even though karyotype analysis and androgen receptor (AR) sequencing were both relatively high yield for identifying a genetic etiology. Increased utilization of traditional genetic approaches could significantly improve the ability to find a genetic diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.