ArticleJournal of pediatric urology2020
Community perspectives on difference of sex development (DSD) diagnoses: A crowdsourced survey.
Article in Journal of pediatric urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stigma in differences of sex development: a scoping review.Journal of pediatric psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
objectivesDifferences of sex development (DSD) engender ethical, social and psychosexual complexities that can complicate medical decision-making. We performed a web-based pilot study to estimate the utility value of a DSD diagnosis and to identify community concerns regarding DSD management.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was posted on Amazon's Mechanical Turk, an online crowdsourcing platform. Respondents were ≥18y and were randomized to receive information on one of three common DSD conditions: Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), Mixed Gonadal Dysgenesis (MGD), and Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS). Time trade-off methodology was used to estimate utility values. Likert scale and statement-ranking questions were used to assess respondent perceptions.
resultsOf 1,628 respondents, median age was 34y; most respondents were parents (59.1%), white (77.1%), and previously unfamiliar with DSD (60.4%). The median overall utility value was 0.70 (IQR 0.50-0.90), similar to moderately severe chronic health conditions. Utility estimates varied based on the DSD scenario presented (0.80 CAH vs. 0.70 MGD vs. 0.80 PAIS, p = 0.0006), respondent gender (p < 0.0001), race (p = 0.002), religion (p = 0.005), and prior knowledge of DSD (p < 0.0001). Reported concerns included gender identity (23.4%), urinary function (20.5%) and surgical complications (17.4%). Most (67.5%) supported early surgical intervention at 6-18 mo; 10.4% thought surgery should occur ≥18 y. COMMENT: Limitations of this study include that survey participants were aware of the nature of the study, thus some respondents may have participated to skew the results. Given the nature of this pilot study, the representation of families with children with DSD within the study is severely limited given the rarity of DSDs. This means that their opinions may be diluted by the large sample size. However, because utility values are classically estimated according to community opinions, the utility data presented should be taken to reflect that of the specific sample studied and is not reflective of that of families with a vested interest in such cases.
conclusionsCommunity-based respondents perceived that DSD conditions were associated with a reduction in utility values (0.70-0.80), on par with moderately severe chronic health conditions. Estimates varied based on respondents' gender, race, religion and prior knowledge of DSD. Gender identity was the most concerning aspect for respondents.
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.