Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 628

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Suggested guidelines for the diagnosis and management of urea cycle disorders

Open access
Häberle, Johannes, Boddaert, Nathalie, Burlina, Alberto, Chakrapani, Anupam, Dixon, Marjorie, Huemer, Martina, Karall, Daniela, Martinelli, Diego, Crespo, Pablo, Santer, René, Servais, Aude, Valayannopoulos, Vassili, Lindner, Martin, Rubio, Vicente, Dionisi-Vici, Carlo·2012·Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Abstract

Urea cycle disorders (UCDs) are inborn errors of ammonia detoxification/arginine synthesis due to defects affecting the catalysts of the Krebs-Henseleit cycle (five core enzymes, one activating enzyme and one mitochondrial ornithine/citrulline antiporter) with an estimated incidence of 1:8.000. Patients present with hyperammonemia either shortly after birth (~50%) or, later at any age, leading to death or to severe neurological handicap in many survivors. Despite the existence of effective therapy with alternative pathway therapy and liver transplantation, outcomes remain poor. This may be related to underrecognition and delayed diagnosis due to the nonspecific clinical presentation and insufficient awareness of health care professionals because of disease rarity. These guidelines aim at providing a trans-European consensus to: guide practitioners, set standards of care and help awareness campaigns. To achieve these goals, the guidelines were developed using a Delphi methodology, by having professionals on UCDs across seven European countries to gather all the existing evidence, score it according to the SIGN evidence level system and draw a series of statements supported by an associated level of evidence. The guidelines were revised by external specialist consultants, unrelated authorities in the field of UCDs and practicing pediatricians in training. Although the evidence degree did hardly ever exceed level C (evidence from non-analytical studies like case reports and series), it was sufficient to guide practice on both acute and chronic presentations, address diagnosis, management, monitoring, outcomes, and psychosocial and ethical issues. Also, it identified knowledge voids that must be filled by future research. We believe these guidelines will help to: harmonise practice, set common standards and spread good practices with a positive impact on the outcomes of UCD patients.

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 · 10.1186/1750-1172-7-32

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 628

Metadata

Authors
Häberle, J., Boddaert, N., Burlina, A., Chakrapani, A., Dixon, M., Huemer, M., Karall, D., Martinelli, D., Crespo, P., Santer, R., Servais, A., Valayannopoulos, V., Lindner, M., Rubio, V., & Dionisi-Vici, C.
Venue
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
Published
2012
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
32
ISSN
1750-1172 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170491580
Cited by
628
References
2
FWCI
21.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Suggested guidelines for the diagnosis and management of urea cycle disorders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1750-1172-7-32
The paper
Häberle, J., Boddaert, N., Burlina, A., Chakrapani, A., Dixon, M., Huemer, M., Karall, D., Martinelli, D., Crespo, P., Santer, R., Servais, A., Valayannopoulos, V., Lindner, M., Rubio, V., & Dionisi-Vici, C. (2012). Suggested guidelines for the diagnosis and management of urea cycle disorders. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-7-32

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.