Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 423

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EAA/EMQN best practice guidelines for molecular diagnosis of Y‐chromosomal microdeletions: state‐of‐the‐art 2013

Open access
Krausz, C., Hoefsloot, L., Simoni, M., Tüttelmann, F.·2014·Andrology

Abstract

Summary: The molecular diagnosis of Y‐chromosomal microdeletions is a common routine genetic test which is part of the diagnostic workup of azoospermic and severe oligozoospermic men. Since 1999, the European Academy of Andrology (EAA) and the European Molecular Genetics Quality Network (EMQN) have been actively involved in supporting the improvement of the quality of the diagnostic assays by publication of the laboratory guidelines for molecular diagnosis of Y‐chromosomal microdeletions and by offering external quality assessment trials. The present revision of the 2004 laboratory guidelines summarizes all the clinical novelties related to the Y chromosome (classic, partial and gene‐specific deletions, genotype–phenotype correlations, methodological issues) and provides an update on the results of the quality control programme. These aspects also reflect the consensus of a large group of specialists present at a round table session during the recent Florence‐Utah‐Symposium on ‘Genetics of male infertility’ (Florence, 19–21 September, 2013). During the last 10 years the gr/gr deletion has been demonstrated as a significant risk factor for impaired sperm production. However, the screening for this deletion type in the routine diagnostic setting is still a debated issue among experts. The original basic protocol based on two multiplex polymerase chain reactions remains fully valid and appropriate for accurate diagnosis of complete AZF deletions and it requires only a minor modification in populations with a specific Y chromosome background. However, in light of novel data on genotype–phenotype correlations, the extension analysis for the AZF a and AZF b deletions is now routinely recommended. Novel methods and kits with excessively high number of markers do not improve the sensitivity of the test, may even complicate the interpretation of the results and are not recommended. Annual participation in an external quality control programme is strongly encouraged. The 12‐year experience with the EMQN/EAA scheme has shown a steep decline in diagnostic (genotyping) error rate and a simultaneous improvement on reporting practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00173.x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 423

Metadata

Authors
Krausz, C., Hoefsloot, L., Simoni, M., & Tüttelmann, F.
Venue
Andrology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12-20
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
5-19
ISSN
  • 2047-2919 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-2927
OpenAlex
W2211493026
Cited by
423
References
45
FWCI
20.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EAA/EMQN best practice guidelines for molecular diagnosis of Y‐chromosomal microdeletions: state‐of‐the‐art 2013. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00173.x
The paper
Krausz, C., Hoefsloot, L., Simoni, M., & Tüttelmann, F. (2014). EAA/EMQN best practice guidelines for molecular diagnosis of Y‐chromosomal microdeletions: state‐of‐the‐art 2013. Andrology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00173.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.