Prevalence of differences of sex development in Switzerland from 2000-2019
==========================================================================

* Sara Metzger
* Grit Sommer
* Christa E. Flück
* the Swiss DSD Cohort Study Group

## Abstract

**Objective** Reliable data on prevalence of rare differences of sex development (DSD) are lacking. We aimed to estimate population-based prevalence of DSD in Switzerland.

**Design** Retrospective population-based study including individuals with DSD according to Chicago Consensus, born in Switzerland from 2000-2019.

**Methods** Endocrine care centers in all ten Swiss Children’s Hospitals and eight private endocrine practices collected DSD data through the I-DSD registry or case report forms. We calculated prevalence for DSD diagnostic groups and analyzed time trends in prevalence.

**Results** Over the 20-year study period, we identified 561 individuals with DSD. Almost half (n=266, 47%) had sex chromosome DSD, 177 (32%) had 46,XY DSD and 118 (21%) had 46, XX DSD. Causes for 46,XY DSD were disturbed androgen synthesis or action (37/177, 21%), atypical gonadal development (28/177, 16%), or other causes (112/177, 63%). Causes for 46,XX DSD were androgen excess (99/118, 84%), atypical gonadal development (8/118, 7%), or other causes (11/118, 9%). On average, 28 new cases were born with DSD annually. Prevalence was 17 for sex chromosome DSD, 12 for 46,XY DSD and 8 for 46,XX DSD per 100’000 live births and year. One per 7,500 newborn girls had 46,XX congenital adrenal hypoplasia (CAH).

**Conclusion** Prevalence of sex chromosome DSD was lower than expected because of underreporting due to late diagnosis. Prevalence of 46,XX CAH is similar to newborn screening data, suggesting good completeness of cases. For complex DSD cases, we expect complete coverage. This study provides a valuable resource for policymaking and (inter)national research on DSD.

Key words
*   DSD
*   intersex
*   sex chromosome DSD
*   46, XY DSD
*   46, XX DSD
*   CAH
*   gonadal development

## INTRODUCTION

Differences of sex development (DSD) is an umbrella term that stands for a heterogeneous group of rare conditions that affect human sex development and maturation (1). The term DSD has first been introduced with the Chicago Consensus Statement in 2006 that defined DSD as "congenital conditions in which the development of chromosomal, gonadal, anatomic sex is atypical" (2). Most DSDs are congenital due to their genetic origins. However, many individuals never receive a genetic diagnosis but are diagnosed as DSD based on their phenotype (3).

Although this consensus around terminology has been widely accepted by medical professionals, it remains controversial (4), and other terms have been suggested including intersex, variations of sex development or more recently variations of sex characteristics. New knowledge on human sex development and the introduction of a classification based on genetics clarified the perspective on this broad and complex subject. A clear definition allowed researchers and physicians to identify and work together with persons with DSD and improve efforts towards well-integrated, progressive, patient-centered care and research across the DSD spectrum. The I-DSD Registry is an international database for DSD that allows for standardized and pseudonymized data collection (5). It is a valuable tool for researchers and physicians to record and obtain data of individuals with DSD to solve clinical and translational research questions (5, 6). As of June 2023, this registry included data of 7749 individuals with DSD originating from 135 centers of 45 countries world-wide (7). It has formed the basis of over 65 research projects addressing various topics of DSD such as mechanisms of disease of specific subtypes of DSD, genetic and diagnostic approaches, treatment options, long-term outcomes, quality of care and psychosocial topics.

Recent developments have shifted perceptions and approaches toward DSD, yet many open research questions remain to improve care for individuals with DSD (1, 8, 9, 10). Provision of optimal healthcare for individuals with DSD and perception by policymakers, ethical and legal bodies as well as society require a clear understanding of the occurrence of these conditions. However, the accurate incidence and prevalence of DSD are still unknown (11). One exception are studies reporting incidences of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), because CAH is included in national neonatal screening programs (12). Only few studies estimated incidence or prevalence for other types of DSD, but these studies were either old, dating from 1955 to 2000 (13), or covered only single centers or regions and thus yielded variable results (14) (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). To date, no country has a nation-wide registration system for DSD.

Our study is the first to assess prevalence of DSD in a population-based cohort study. We aimed to calculate prevalence and trends in prevalence of DSD diagnostic groups according to the Chicago Consensus Classification during the 20-year period from 2000-2019 in Switzerland.

## MATERIAL AND METHODS

### Ethics, Study Design and Participants

For this population-based retrospective observational study cohort, we retrospectively identified patients with DSD in 19 different Swiss centers of pediatric endocrinology.

We included all individuals with DSD as defined by the Chicago Consensus Classification (2), who were born in Switzerland between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019. Individuals with DSD were mainly followed by a specialized interdisciplinary team (4) at outpatient clinics of pediatric hospitals under the lead of a pediatric endocrinologist. We approached all 11 departments of pediatric endocrinology in Swiss Children’s hospitals to collaborate for data collection, and 10 out of 11 participated covering the whole of Switzerland except the canton of Ticino. We also asked all Swiss pediatric endocrinologists in private practices to report their patients, and 8 followed our call.

The Ethics Committee of the Canton of Bern granted ethical approval to the Swiss DSD Cohort Study under BASEC ID 2016-01210. With ethical approval, we were able to collect a core data set without informed consent of participants.

### Data Collection

Participating centers identified eligible patients through patient lists of treating physicians and searches in their administrative clinical databases or hospital coding systems. Physicians extracted data from medical records and filled them into the basic registration module of the I-DSD Registry ([https://sdmregistries.org/](https://sdmregistries.org/)). Centers without access to the registry used a case report form identical to the variables in the I-DSD Registry. Extracted data included treatment center, year of birth, assigned sex at birth, country of birth, karyotype, details of DSD condition including genetic analyses and current gender. We coded each individual according to the diagnostic categories suggested from the Chicago Consensus Classification (2) into three DSD main groups (sex chromosome DSD, 46,XY DSD, 46,XX DSD) and diagnostic subgroups (sex chromosome DSD: Klinefelter syndrome and variant, Turner syndrome and variants, 45,X/46,XY and variants, other; 46,XY DSD: disorders of gonadal development, disorders in androgen synthesis or action, other; 46,XY DSD: disorders of gonadal development, androgen excess, other). We clarified missing or inconclusive data with the collaborating physicians. Population-based data on live births came from the Swiss Federal Office of Statistics (SFSO). Numbers of cases of CAH identified by newborn screening came from the Swiss Neonatal Screening laboratory ([https://www.neoscreening.ch/de/](https://www.neoscreening.ch/de/)).

To ensure that our cohort did not include duplicate entries of the same individuals with DSD, an independent institution performed record linkage based on first and last name and date of birth.

### Data Analysis and Statistics

We calculated prevalence based on the day the individuals were born, assuming that any DSD regardless of the timing of clinical presentation, is already present at birth, similarly to a Danish study on CAH (24). We calculated prevalence based on population data from the Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO). We calculated the average number of cases born with DSD per year for main DSD categories and specific DSD subgroups during the entire observation period from 2000-2019 and for four 5-year intervals (2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2010–2014, 2015–2019). We calculated prevalence of DSD expressed per 100’000 liveborn individuals per year. Depending on the diagnosis, we calculated prevalence based on all newborns, or only newborn boys or newborn girls. For all DSDs combined, for the main DSD categories (sex chromosome DSD, 46,XY DSD, 46,XX DSD), and for two sex chromosome DSD subgroups (45,X/46,XY and variants, other sex chromosome DSD) we used the number of all newborns. For Klinefelter syndrome and variants and the 46,XY DSD subgroups (disorders of gonadal development, disorders in androgen synthesis or action, other 46,XY DSD) we used newborn boys. For Turner syndrome and variants and the 46,XX DSD subgroups (disorders of gonadal development, androgen excess, other 46,XX DSD) we used newborn girls. We calculated confidence intervals for prevalence using the Poisson distribution (25). We used Stata, Version 16.1 for data preparation and descriptive statistics, and R statistic management, R Version 4.2.2 for prevalence calculations.

To examine trends in prevalence expressed as annual percentage changes (APC), we used JoinPoint, Version 4.0.2.2. JoinPoint is a statistical package originally developed by the US National Cancer Institute to describe trends in cancer incidence and mortality (26). JoinPoint fitted regression lines through the selected data, with the natural logarithm of proportion (prevalence) as dependent variable and calendar year (2000–2019) as independent variable. We allowed for a maximum number of 0 joinpoints to capture overarching trends within the data.

## RESULTS

A total of 685 individuals with DSD born between 2000 and 2019 were treated in the 10 pediatric hospitals including all University Children’s Hospitals in Switzerland and the 8 private pediatric practices. We excluded duplicate individuals (n=56) and individuals born outside of Switzerland or in the canton Ticino (n=66), leading to a final cohort of 561 individuals with DSD (**Figure 1**).

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/F1)

Figure 1: Identification of the Swiss DSD cohort.
Study participants were identified through pediatric endocrinology departments in pediatric hospitals and private practices specialized in endocrine care.

We classified our cohort of 561 individuals into the three main DSD categories according to the Chicago Consensus Classification (2). A total of 266 (47%) individuals had sex chromosome DSD, 177 (32%) 46,XY DSD and 118 (21%) 46,XX DSD. **Table 1** gives an overview of the specific diagnoses comprised within these three main DSD categories.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/T1)

Table 1: Numbers and proportions of DSD cases in Switzerland born between 2000 and 2019, by sex at birth.

### Prevalence of DSD in Switzerland

Throughout the entire 20-year study period spanning from 2000 to 2019, an annual average of 76’719 children were born in all Swiss cantons excluding Ticino. During the same period, we identified an average number of 28 individuals with DSD born per year (**Table 2**), resulting in an overall prevalence of 36.6 (95%CI 33.6; 39.7) per 100’000 newborns per year for all DSD diagnoses (**Table 2**).

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/T2)

Table 2. Prevalence, average number of cases per year of individuals identified with DSD in Switzerland, born between 2000-2019, by diagnostic group.

When we stratified our study period into 5-year intervals, annual DSD prevalence per 100’000 newborns was highest with 44.3 (95%CI 31.7; 51.7) between 2005-2009, and lowest with 28.2 (95%CI 23.4; 33.7) in the most recent interval between 2015-2019 (Figure 2A and Supplemental Table 1). Sex chromosome DSD accounted for the largest proportion of cases among all DSD main groups between 2000-2014. Only between 2015-2019, the 46,XY DSD proportion was larger. Throughout all time intervals, the 46,XX DSD group accounted for the smallest proportion of cases.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/F2)

Figure 2: 
Comparison of prevalence of identified individuals with DSD in Switzerland between 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2014 and 2015-2019, by DSD diagnostic group, according to the Chicago Consensus Classification. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. Abbreviations: DSD, differences of sex development.

Sex chromosome DSD prevalence was highest with 24.0 (95%CI 19.2; 29.7) per 100’000 newborns per year between 2000-2004 (Figure 2B and Supplemental Table 1). Turner syndrome and variants accounted for the largest proportion of sex chromosome DSD (prevalence 20.0 per 100’000 newborn girls, 95%CI 16.9;23.5), followed by Klinefelter syndrome and variants (prevalence 9.4 per 100’000 newborn boys, 95%CI 7.4-11.8). Other types of sex chromosome DSD were rare (prevalence 0.5-1.7 per 100’000 newborns). Prevalence of sex chromosome DSD decreased from 2000-2019 with an APC of −6.3 (95%CI −8.4; −4.1) which was mainly driven by the Klinefelter syndrome (APC −8.2, 95%CI 11.4; −4.8) and Turner syndrome group (APC −5.2, 95%CI −7.8; −2.5) (Figures 2B and 3B).

![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/F3)

Figure 3: 
Trends in prevalence of identified DSDs in Switzerland between 2000-2019, by DSD diagnostic group according to the Chicago Consensus Classification. We used JoinPoint regression to analyze the annual percentage change (APC) in prevalence over time. We did not model APC in diagnostic groups where there were no cases in >3 calendar years. Bold letters indicate p-values <0.5. Abbreviations: APC, Annual Percent Change; DSD, differences of sex development.

Prevalence of 46,XY DSD was 11.5 (95%CI 9.9; 13.4) per 100’000 newborns for the entire study period and remained stable over time (APC 1.8, 95%CI −0.5; 4.1) (Table 2, Figure 3C), with a slight trend towards an increasing prevalence after 2014 (Figure 2C). Other 46,XY DSD (prevalence 14.2 per 100’000 newborn boys, 95%CI 11.7; 17.1) was highest among the group of 46,XY DSD, followed by disorders in androgen synthesis or action (prevalence 4.7 per 100’000 newborn boys, 95%CI 3.3; 6.5) and disorders of gonadal development (prevalence 3.5 per 100’000 newborn boys, 95%CI 2.4; 5.1) (Table 2). While prevalence of other 46,XY DSD increased over time (APC 4.5, 95%CI 1.0-8.1), prevalence of disorders of gonadal development or disorders in androgen synthesis or action remained stable (Figure 3C).

Prevalence of 46,XX DSD was 7.7 (95%CI 6.4; 9.2) per 100’000 newborns (Table 2, Figures 2D and 3D), and remained stable over time (APC −2.3, 95%CI −5.9; 1.4) (Table 2, Figure 3D). Among 46,XX DSD, the androgen excess group had the highest prevalence with 13.3 (95%CI 10.8; 16.2) per 100’000 newborn girls with stable prevalence over the study period. Other types of 46, XX DSD were rare (prevalence 1.1-1.5 per 100’000 newborn girls).

### Sex registration at birth

In Switzerland sex registration at birth is mandatory and only the traditional categories of either male or female are officially available. We did not observe a difference in ratio of sex registration over the study period (Table 1). In our cohort of 561 individuals, 301 (54%) were registered with female sex at birth and 242 (43%) with male sex at birth. For 18 individuals, physicians reported that sex directly at birth was not assigned (3%; n=14 46,XY and n=4 46,XX), and data on official sex registration at birth was not available to us. All individuals with sex chromosome DSD were registered with a female or male sex at birth. Discordance between karyotype and sex registration at birth was found in 28/177 individuals with 46,XY DSD (16%) and in 12/118 individuals with 46,XX DSD (10%). A difference between registered sex at birth and gender at last follow-up was reported in 5 individuals originally registered female at birth (1%) and in 7 individuals originally registered male at birth (1%) with one individual identifying as both male and female.

### Where are individuals with DSD cared for?

We found that most children and adolescents with DSD in Switzerland (452/561, 80%) were seen by pediatric endocrinologists working in hospitals with a interdisciplinary DSD team (Figure 4). Pediatric endocrinologists in private practice cared predominantly for children and adolescents with Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, or 46,XX androgen excess.

![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/13/2024.03.11.24304115/F4)

Figure 4: 
Number of individuals with DSD according to the Chicago Consensus Classification by type of treatment center, identified in Switzerland between 2000-2019.

Abbreviations: DSD, differences of sex development.

## DISCUSSION

We report prevalence for different DSD diagnoses according to the Chicago Consensus Classification in a population-based cohort between 2000-2019 in Switzerland. Prevalence of DSD treated by pediatric endocrinologist was 37 per 100’000 (1:2’735) newborns including sex chromosome, 46,XY and 46,XX DSD. Overall, DSD prevalence decreased from 2000-2019, which was driven by a strong decrease in prevalence of sex chromosome DSD. Prevalence of 46,XY DSD tended to increase and prevalence of 46,XX DSD to decrease over time.

Most studies on epidemiology of DSD come from single centers in different countries. These studies mostly describe prevalence of DSD (15, 18, 20, 21, 27) or atypical genitalia (16, 19, 22), and only some used the Chicago Consensus Classification. The reported prevalence at birth ranges from 1:357 when including any kind of atypical genitalia (27) to 1:6’347 when using DSD diagnoses according to the Chicago Consensus Classification (21). The two existing multicenter studies from the US (17) and Scotland (23) reported numbers of children with either atypical genitalia or DSD at birth. The Scottish study registered atypical genitalia in Scotland prospectively between 2013-2019. They found that in 1 of 1’881 newborns, the treating physicians suspected a DSD and 1 of 3’318 newborns required DSD specialist consultation (23).

The US study by Finlayson et al (17) compared relative prevalence of DSD diagnoses within a cohort of 99 infants with atypical genitalia to other cohorts and found large differences in relative prevalence of sex chromosome, 46,XY and 46,XX DSD between cohorts. Several factors may contribute to this broad variability, including definition of diagnosis (e.g. inclusion/exclusion of cases without atypical genitalia), differences in study population (e.g. ethnicity, consanguinity), sampling (single center versus multicenter), study design (e.g. prospective, cross-sectional), age of study participants (e.g. newborns, children, all ages). Thus population-based data to obtain representative estimates of prevalence for different DSD diagnoses is crucial.

### Sex chromosome DSD

We calculated prevalence of DSD based on live birth rates in Switzerland. Our overall prevalences are lower than published data for sex chromosome DSD (28, 29). Turner syndrome occurs in 25-50 individuals per 100’000 females (28, 30). We found a prevalence of 24-29 per 100’000 newborn girls for Turner syndrome and variants during 2000-2009, which decreased to 9 per 100’000 during 2015-2019. This decrease in prevalence over time is due to the fact that less than one third of individuals with Turner syndrome are diagnosed in childhood or adolescence (28, 30). The reported prevalence for Klinefelter syndrome varies from 40-250 per 100’000 males with the main proportion only diagnosed in adulthood (31, 32). For Klinefelter and variants we found a prevalence of 18 per 100’000 newborn boys during 2000-2004 that decreased to 5 per 100’000 during 2015-2009. Our cohort included individuals with DSD who were born from 2000-2019, thus a large proportion of individuals were too young to have received a Turner syndrome or Klinefelter syndrome diagnosis. Cohort studies with systematic screening or longer observation periods are needed to capture real prevalence estimates for individuals with Turner and Klinefelter syndrome. Some individuals with Turner or Klinefelter syndrome may not have required pediatric endocrine care and thus were missed by our cohort study.

### Non-chromosomal DSD

We assume almost complete coverage of rare and complex subgroups of non-chromosomal DSD with atypical genitalia. These individuals are often diagnosed at birth and require extensive diagnostic assessments which leads to treatment by specialized DSD teams. Specialized DSD physicians reported all their DSD cases to our study cohort, reducing the likelihood of missing eligible individuals. Comparable prevalence data is scarce for individuals with complex forms of DSD.

46,XY DSD comprise disorders of gonadal development, disorders in androgen synthesis or action, and other forms. A Swedish study (33) found a prevalence of 6.4 per 100’000 live born females for individuals with a 46,XY karyotype and a female phenotype. These figures are hard to compare to our results, because we calculated prevalence based on newborn boys and did not include data on phenotype. We observed a prevalence of 3.5 per 100’000 newborn boys for individuals with disorders of gonadal development and of 4.7 for individuals with androgen synthesis or action. The largest group among the 46,XY DSD was the heterogeneous group of other 46,XY DSD including complex genital and cloacal anomalies. Often individuals of this group are not classified as DSD in hospital administration coding systems, as they have their first presentation in departments other than endocrinology (e.g. urology). Only a fraction is referred to specialized DSD teams for interdisciplinary care and genetic work-up. Genetic work-up does not yield a genetic diagnosis relating to a DSD in >50% of individuals (34). In a US single center study among 131 boys with proximal hypospadias, only 60 (46%) received endocrine and genetic testing and 9 (7%) received a DSD diagnosis (35). In a Chinese single center study in 165 individuals with proximal hypospadias, only 14 (8%) obtained a DSD diagnosis (36). Depending on which forms of hypospadias might qualify as DSD, we assume that we have largely underestimated the prevalence of the subgroup of other 46,XY DSD in our study. Interestingly, we observed the highest prevalence in the most recent study period from 2015-2019. Increased awareness of DSD among different specialties may have led to more referrals to pediatric endocrinologists in more recent years, particularly after the Chicago Consensus Statement. This group may also include individuals who have not yet received a genetic DSD diagnosis that would allow categorization into the more specific DSD subcategories.

46,XX DSD comprise disorders of gonadal development, androgen excess and other forms. Most studies describe prevalence for individuals with androgen excess, mostly for CAH. Only one nation-wide cohort study from Sweden reported data on other forms of 46,XX DSD (33). They report a prevalence of 3.5-4.7 per 100’000 newborn males for individuals with a 46,XX karyotype and a male phenotype who mainly presented for fertility concerns and were diagnosed with DSD. Among their study cohort of 44 individuals, 33 had disorders of gonadal development and 3 had CAH. Comparison to our data is difficult, because categorization of 46,XX DSD diagnoses differed. In our study, we calculated prevalence for 46,XX DSD based on newborn girls while they used newborn boys, and we did not collect data on phenotype.

Because our cohort was relatively young, we may have missed individuals with 46,XX DSD who only come to medical attention later in life due to fertility concerns, leading to an underestimation of the prevalence in this DSD group. We also assume underreporting of 46,XX disorders of gonadal development and other 46,XX DSD for the earliest interval from 2000-2004 due to the retrospective study design and lack of consensus on diagnostic nomenclature. Several countries, including Switzerland, published CAH prevalence data from their national neonatal screening programs. Our prevalence estimates are hard to compare to data from the Swiss Newborn Screening ([https://www.neoscreening.ch/de](https://www.neoscreening.ch/de)), because they do not distinguish between girls and boys and they only capture individuals with classic CAH. Our cohort included individuals with non-classic CAH. Prevalence of all subtypes of CAH in Danish females was 15.1 per 100’000 newborn girls (24), which was comparable to our study with a prevalence of 13.3 per 100’000 newborn girls for 46,XX androgen excess.

The limitations of available data illustrate the need for national or international registries for rare DSD covering the entire population to enable incidence and prevalence estimates based on the population at risk. Real world numbers are important for discussing controversial topics and receiving the necessary attention and resources from the community to obtain the best possible support for individuals with DSD (8, 23). This concerns political, legal and medical affairs as well as research activities and has been recognized by official bodies in several countries worldwide. The Swiss National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics (37) and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences have published recommendations in 2012 and 2016 which include the establishment of population-based registration of DSD. According to international recommendations, individuals with DSD should be cared for by interdisciplinary DSD teams at qualified centers (1, 4, 8, 10, 38, 39, 40, 41). In Switzerland, most persons with DSD born between 2000 and 2019 and followed by a pediatric endocrinologist are cared for in a hospital setting where interdisciplinary DSD teams are established or with a connection to a DSD team.

Sex registration at birth, sex reassignment and gender in later life are topics which are often discussed controversially by policy makers, medical professionals, patient representatives and human rights activists because many questions are unsolved. One of the most controversially discussed question is whether medical treatments should be offered to children with atypical genitalia who cannot consent or whether it should be banned by a legal embargo (4, 9).

Accurate estimations regarding the number of affected individuals and families, supported by data are lacking, but would help in the discourse. Our study showed that Swiss DSD teams treat only few individuals with rare forms of DSD for which state-of-the-art workup does not reveal a clear diagnosis and treatment plan (1, 10).

In a multicenter study from Scotland including individuals with atypical genitalia at birth, sex registration was only delayed in 1 of 11’097 newborns who had atypical genitalia at birth suggesting a complex form of DSD requiring extensive diagnostic procedures. In all individuals sex was registered within the first 2 weeks of life, and in only one individual, sex was reassigned in the first 3 months of life (23). In our 20-year study period, only 13/543 individuals (2.4 %) had a gender at last follow-up that differed to the registered sex at birth. This may indicate that sex registration at birth is mostly fitting. However, data on sex registration was not available in 18 individuals (3.2 %) and we did not record age at last follow up. In addition, our study cohort was young and gender incongruence might manifest only later in life. Thus, we may have slightly underestimated the frequency of gender reassignment in DSD.

Only population-based data collections with complete prospective and standardized follow-up can yield reliable estimates on DSD prevalence, gender reassignment, and other topics such as treatment satisfaction. To solve open questions on frequencies of hormonal and surgical treatments in individuals with DSD and whether these treatments align with international recommendations, data registries need to be tailored and standardized for different DSD diagnoses. The I-DSD Registry is a rare disease registry which allowed to answer many open questions in the past (5) and proved to be a valuable tool for our study. It offers additional value for physicians and researchers to join international studies on specific diagnosis groups. Particularly in the field of rare diseases, international networking is very important.

This is the first population-based study reporting on overall DSD prevalence and prevalence of subcategories as defined by the Chicago Consensus Classification. Our study, however, is limited by underestimation of prevalence for individuals with DSD. Our time interval of data collection was relatively short and very recent (from 2000-2019), leading to a young study population at time of data collection. Thus, our study did not capture individuals with DSD who have not yet received a diagnosis. Identification of individuals with DSD was retrospective, thus we may have missed patients which were not correctly coded as DSD in the administrative clinical databases or hospital coding systems. Our data collection covered the whole of Switzerland except for the canton of Ticino. Ticino is a geographically distinct region in the South of Switzerland, and the only canton where Italian is the official language. It is thus unlikely that individuals with DSD born and living in Ticino are treated in other cantons. As the Chicago Consensus Classification was published and implemented in 2006, and the structure of the I-DSD Registry changed during our study period, classification of DSD might have differed over time. To avoid misclassification, a designated study team coded all DSD cases into categories according to the Chicago Consensus Classification based on extracted data. We could not calculate incidence of DSD, because information on year of diagnosis was missing. We also could not calculate the external genitalia score (EGS) (42) or the external masculinization score (EMS) (43), because the core data set used in this study did not include phenotype information. However, the scope of our study focused on prevalence of DSD according to Chicago Consensus Classification, and we did not require phenotype information for coding.

In summary, we found that individuals with complex forms of DSD were rare and received treatment from interdisciplinary specialized DSD teams. Our data, similar to other studies, underestimated prevalence. Systematic prospective data collection is needed to provide robust estimates on DSD occurrence. Standard guidelines for analyzing prevalence of DSD are lacking to enable comparison of countries and studies. Such guidelines should include standards on classification of diagnostic groups and a definition of the population at risk for each DSD diagnostic subgroup.

## Supporting information

Supplemental Table 1 [[supplements/304115_file02.docx]](pending:yes)

## Funding

This work was supported by the Swiss Society of Endocrinology and Diabetology (SGED), by the Boveri Foundation Zürich and by the “Stiftung Kinderinsel”.

## Data Availability Statement

Data of this study are registered in the I-DSD Registry and can be accessed upon request. I-DSD governance and rules apply, see [https://sdmregistries.org/](https://sdmregistries.org/).

## Supplemental material

**Supplemental Table 1:** Prevalence, average number of cases per year and sex ratio of children identified with DSD in Switzerland, born between 2000-2019, by diagnostic group and 5-year periods.

## Acknowledgements

We thank the Swiss DSD Cohort Study Group for their support. Members of this groups who helped in the collection of data are (in alphabetical order): Christine Aebi-Ochsner, Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Biel Switzerland; Kanetee Busiah, Department of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, CHUV, University Children’s Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland; Mirjam Dirlewanger, Pediatric Endocrine and Diabetes Unit, Children’s University Hospital Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Sylvia Gschwend, Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Zug, Switzerland; Melanie Hess, Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, University Children’s Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Beatrice Kuhlmann, Pediatric Endocrinology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland and Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Basel, Switzerland; Dagmar l’Allemand, Department of Endocrinology, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Switzerland, St. Gallen, Switzerland; Mariarosaria Lang, Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Kees Noordam, Centre for Paediatric Endocrinology Zurich (PEZZ), Zurich, Switzerland; Franziska Phan-Hug, Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Morges, Morges and Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Wallis, Sion, Switzerland; Ursina Probst, Department of Pediatrics, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland; Maristella Santi, Department of Pediatrics, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland; Silvia Schmid, Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Dubendorf, Switzerland; Valérie Schwitzgebel, Pediatric Endocrine and Diabetes Unit, Children’s University Hospital Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Michael Steigert, Department of Pediatrics, Cantonal Hospital Graubuenden, Chur, Switzerland; Gabor Szinnai, Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, University Children’s Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Gerald Theintz, Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Lausanne, Switzerland.

## Footnotes

*   * co-last authors

*   Members of the Swiss DSD Cohort Study Group in alphabetical order: Christine Aebi-Ochsner, Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Biel Switzerland; Kanetee Busiah, Department of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, CHUV, University Children’s Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland; Mirjam Dirlewanger, Pediatric Endocrine and Diabetes Unit, Children’s University Hospital Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Sylvia Gschwend, Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Zug, Switzerland; Melanie Hess, Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, University Children’s Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Beatrice Kuhlmann, Pediatric Endocrinology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland and Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Basel, Switzerland; Dagmar l’Allemand, Department of Endocrinology, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Switzerland, St. Gallen, Switzerland; Mariarosaria Lang, Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Kees Noordam, Centre for Paediatric Endocrinology Zurich (PEZZ), Zurich, Switzerland; Franziska Phan-Hug, Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Morges, Morges and Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Wallis, Sion, Switzerland; Ursina Probst, Department of Pediatrics, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland; Maristella Santi, Department of Pediatrics, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland; Silvia Schmid, Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Dubendorf, Switzerland; Valérie Schwitzgebel, Pediatric Endocrine and Diabetes Unit, Children’s University Hospital Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Michael Steigert, Department of Pediatrics, Cantonal Hospital Graubuenden, Chur, Switzerland; Gabor Szinnai, Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, University Children’s Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Gerald Theintz, Private Practice for Paediatric Endocrinology, Lausanne, Switzerland.

*   *Disclosure:* The authors declare no conflict of interest.

*   Received March 11, 2024.
*   Revision received March 11, 2024.
*   Accepted March 13, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Cools M, Nordenstrom A, Robeva R, Hall J, Westerveld P, Fluck C, et al. Caring for individuals with a difference of sex development (DSD): a Consensus Statement. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(7):415–29.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

2.  2.Hughes IA, Houk C, Ahmed SF, Lee PA, Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society/European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology Consensus G. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. J Pediatr Urol. 2006;2(3):148–62.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.03.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18947601&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

3.  3.Fluck CE, Guran T. Ambiguous Genitalia in the Newborn. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Blackman MR, Boyce A, Chrousos G, Corpas E, et al., editors. Endotext. South Dartmouth (MA)2000.
    
    

4.  4.Lee PA, Nordenstrom A, Houk CP, Ahmed SF, Auchus R, Baratz A, et al. Global Disorders of Sex Development Update since 2006: Perceptions, Approach and Care. Horm Res Paediatr. 2016;85(3):158–80.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000442975&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26820577&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

5.  5.Lucas-Herald AK, Ali SR, McMillan C, Rodie ME, McMillan M, Bryce J, et al. I-DSD: The First 10 Years. Horm Res Paediatr. 2023;96(2):238–46.
    
    

6.  6.Ali SR, Lucas-Herald A, Bryce J, Ahmed SF. The Role of International Databases in Understanding the Aetiology and Consequences of Differences/Disorders of Sex Development. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(18).
    
    

7.  7.Ahmed SF. The I-DSD/I-CAH/I-TS Network Activity Report 2023 2023 [Available from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/[https://sdmregistries.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/I-DSD-Activity-Report-June-2023-v2-27.7.23.pdf](https://sdmregistries.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/I-DSD-Activity-Report-June-2023-v2-27.7.23.pdf).
    
    

8.  8.Hiort O, Cools M, Springer A, McElreavey K, Greenfield A, Wudy SA, et al. Addressing gaps in care of people with conditions affecting sex development and maturation. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019;15(10):615–22.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

9.  9.Cools M, Simmonds M, Elford S, Gorter J, Ahmed SF, D’Alberton F, et al. Response to the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner’s Issue Paper on Human Rights and Intersex People. Eur Urol. 2016;70(3):407–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.015&link_type=DOI) 

10. 10.Fluck C, Nordenstrom A, Ahmed SF, Ali SR, Berra M, Hall J, et al. Standardised data collection for clinical follow-up and assessment of outcomes in differences of sex development (DSD): recommendations from the COST action DSDnet. Eur J Endocrinol. 2019;181(5):545–64.
    
    

11. 11.Sax L. How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. J Sex Res. 2002;39(3):174–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/00224490209552139&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12476264&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178870300002&link_type=ISI) 

12. 12.Claahsen-van der Grinten HL, Speiser PW, Ahmed SF, Arlt W, Auchus RJ, Falhammar H, et al. Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia-Current Insights in Pathophysiology, Diagnostics, and Management. Endocr Rev. 2022;43(1):91–159.
    
    

13. 13.Blackless M, Charuvastra A, Derryck A, Fausto-Sterling A, Lauzanne K, Lee E. How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. Am J Hum Biol. 2000;12(2):151–66.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2<151::AID-AJHB1>3.0.CO;2-F&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11534012&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085333000001&link_type=ISI) 

14. 14.Conway GS. Differences in Sex Development (DSD) and related conditions: mechanisms, prevalences and changing practice. Int J Impot Res. 2023;35(1):46–50.
    
    

15. 15.Ata A, Ozen S, Onay H, Uzun S, Goksen D, Ozkinay F, et al. A large cohort of disorders of sex development and their genetic characteristics: 6 novel mutations in known genes. Eur J Med Genet. 2021;64(3):104154.
    
    

16. 16.De Paula GB, Barros BA, Carpini S, Tincani BJ, Mazzola TN, Sanches Guaragna M, et al. 408 Cases of Genital Ambiguity Followed by Single Multidisciplinary Team during 23 Years: Etiologic Diagnosis and Sex of Rearing. Int J Endocrinol. 2016;2016:4963574.
    
    

17. 17.Finlayson C, Rosoklija I, Aston CE, Austin P, Bakula D, Baskin L, et al. Baseline Characteristics of Infants With Atypical Genital Development: Phenotypes, Diagnoses, and Sex of Rearing. J Endocr Soc. 2019;3(1):264–72.
    
    

18. 18.Ganie Y, Aldous C, Balakrishna Y, Wiersma R. Disorders of sex development in children in KwaZulu-Natal Durban South Africa: 20-year experience in a tertiary centre. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2017;30(1):11–8.
    
    

19. 19.Heeley JM, Hollander AS, Austin PF, Merritt DF, Wesevich VG, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis DSDT, et al. Risk association of congenital anomalies in patients with ambiguous genitalia: A 22-year single-center experience. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(2):153 e1–e7.
    
    

20. 20.Juniarto AZ, van der Zwan YG, Santosa A, Ariani MD, Eggers S, Hersmus R, et al. Hormonal evaluation in relation to phenotype and genotype in 286 patients with a disorder of sex development from Indonesia. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2016;85(2):247–57.
    
    

21. 21.Man E, Mushtaq I, Barnicoat A, Carmichael P, Hughes CR, Davies K, et al. A Single-Center, Observational Study of 607 Children and Young People Presenting With Differences of Sex Development (DSD). J Endocr Soc. 2022;7(1):bvac165.
    
    

22. 22.Manzoor J, Aftab S, Yaqoob M. Ambiguous genitalia: An overview of 7 years experience at the Children’s Hospital & Institute of Child Health, Lahore, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(1):151–5.
    
    

23. 23.Rodie ME, Ali SR, Jayasena A, Alenazi NR, McMillan M, Cox K, et al. A Nationwide Study of the Prevalence and Initial Management of Atypical Genitalia in the Newborn in Scotland. Sex Dev. 2022;16(1):11–8.
    
    

24. 24.Berglund A, Ornstrup MJ, Lind-Holst M, Duno M, Baekvad-Hansen M, Juul A, et al. Epidemiology and diagnostic trends of congenital adrenal hyperplasia in Denmark: a retrospective, population-based study. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2023;28:100598.
    
    

25. 25.Begaud B, Martin K, Abouelfath A, Tubert-Bitter P, Moore N, Moride Y. An easy to use method to approximate Poisson confidence limits. Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20(3):213–6.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15921037&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

26. 26.Kim HJ, Chen HS, Byrne J, Wheeler B, Feuer EJ. Twenty years since Joinpoint 1.0: Two major enhancements, their justification, and impact. Stat Med. 2022;41(16):3102–30.
    
    

27. 27.Ameyaw E, Asafo-Agyei SB, Hughes IA, Zacharin M, Chanoine JP. Incidence of disorders of sexual development in neonates in Ghana: prospective study. Arch Dis Child. 2019;104(7):636–8.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImFyY2hkaXNjaGlsZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxMDQvNy82MzYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMy8xMy8yMDI0LjAzLjExLjI0MzA0MTE1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

28. 28.Gravholt CH, Andersen NH, Conway GS, Dekkers OM, Geffner ME, Klein KO, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the care of girls and women with Turner syndrome: proceedings from the 2016 Cincinnati International Turner Syndrome Meeting. Eur J Endocrinol. 2017;177(3):G1–G70.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZWplIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjE3Ny8zL0cxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTMvMjAyNC4wMy4xMS4yNDMwNDExNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

29. 29.Zitzmann M, Aksglaede L, Corona G, Isidori AM, Juul A, T’Sjoen G, et al. European academy of andrology guidelines on Klinefelter Syndrome Endorsing Organization: European Society of Endocrinology. Andrology. 2021;9(1):145–67.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

30. 30.Stochholm K, Juul S, Juel K, Naeraa RW, Gravholt CH. Prevalence, incidence, diagnostic delay, and mortality in Turner syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(10):3897–902.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1210/jc.2006-0558&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16849410&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241100900031&link_type=ISI) 

31. 31.Herlihy AS, Halliday JL, Cock ML, McLachlan RI. The prevalence and diagnosis rates of Klinefelter syndrome: an Australian comparison. Med J Aust. 2011;194(1):24–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21449864&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000286161300008&link_type=ISI) 

32. 32.Bojesen A, Juul S, Gravholt CH. Prenatal and postnatal prevalence of Klinefelter syndrome: a national registry study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(2):622–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1210/jc.2002-021491&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12574191&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000180915300021&link_type=ISI) 

33. 33.Berglund A, Johannsen TH, Stochholm K, Viuff MH, Fedder J, Main KM, et al. Incidence, Prevalence, Diagnostic Delay, and Clinical Presentation of Female 46,XY Disorders of Sex Development. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(12):4532–40.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1210/jc.2016-2248&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

34. 34.Audi L, Ahmed SF, Krone N, Cools M, McElreavey K, Holterhus PM, et al. GENETICS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY: Approaches to molecular genetic diagnosis in the management of differences/disorders of sex development (DSD): position paper of EU COST Action BM 1303 ‘DSDnet’. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;179(4):R197–R206.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1530/EJE-18-0256&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

35. 35.Johnson EK, Jacobson DL, Finlayson C, Yerkes EB, Goetsch AL, Leeth EA, et al. Proximal Hypospadias-Isolated Genital Condition or Marker of More? J Urol. 2020;204(2):345–52.
    
    

36. 36.Wong YS, Tam YH, Pang KKY, Yau HC. Incidence and diagnoses of disorders of sex development in proximal hypospadias. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53(12):2498–501.
    
    

37. 37.Ethics SNACoB. Variations of sex development. Bern, Switzerland: SAMW; 2012.
    
    

38. 38.Lucas-Herald AK, Rodie ME, Ahmed SF. Update on the management of a newborn with a suspected difference of sex development. Arch Dis Child. 2021.
    
    

39. 39.Lucas-Herald AK, Scougall K, Ahmed SF. Delivery of multidisciplinary care in the field of differences and disorders of sex development (DSD). Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2022;17(3):225–34.
    
    

40. 40.Wisniewski AB, Batista RL, Costa EMF, Finlayson C, Sircili MHP, Denes FT, et al. Management of 46,XY Differences/Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) Throughout Life. Endocr Rev. 2019;40(6):1547–72.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 

41. 41.Bever YV, Bruggenwirth HT, Wolffenbuttel KP, Dessens AB, Groenenberg IAL, Knapen M, et al. Under-reported aspects of diagnosis and treatment addressed in the Dutch-Flemish guideline for comprehensive diagnostics in disorders/differences of sex development. J Med Genet. 2020;57(9):581–9.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToiam1lZGdlbmV0IjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjU3LzkvNTgxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTMvMjAyNC4wMy4xMS4yNDMwNDExNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

42. 42.van der Straaten S, Springer A, Zecic A, Hebenstreit D, Tonnhofer U, Gawlik A, et al. The External Genitalia Score (EGS): A European Multicenter Validation Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(3).
    
    

43. 43.Ahmed SF, Khwaja O, Hughes IA. The role of a clinical score in the assessment of ambiguous genitalia. BJU Int. 2000;85(1):120–4.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00354.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10619959&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F13%2F2024.03.11.24304115.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000084987600025&link_type=ISI)