4.2 Review

Utilization of the 2017 diagnostic criteria for hEDS by the Toronto GoodHope Ehlers-Danlos syndrome clinic: A retrospective review

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 182, 期 3, 页码 484-492

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61459

关键词

Beighton; diagnosis; Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; hypermobility

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Long Term Care in Ontario
  2. Toronto General Hospital Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The new 2017 diagnostic criteria for hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) provide a framework for diagnosing hEDS but are more stringent than the previous Villefranche criteria. Our clinical experience at the GoodHope EDS clinic was that the 2017 criteria left many highly symptomatic patients without a diagnosis of hEDS. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to confirm our clinic experience and assess the accuracy of the 2017 diagnostic criteria for hEDS in patients who had a previous hEDS diagnosis based on the Villefranche criteria. Our study found that 15% (n = 20 of 131) of patients with a prior diagnosis of hEDS met the 2017 diagnostic criteria, and many of the traits used to distinguish hEDS were not significantly more frequent in patients who met 2017 criteria versus those who did not. In both groups objective systemic manifestations were found less frequently than subjective systemic manifestations. Beighton score (BS) as assessed by primary care practitioner was found to be higher than assessment by EDS practitioner in 81% (n = 74 of 91) of cases. Generalized joint hypermobility was confirmed in only 46% (n = 51 of 111) of patients who had a previous diagnosis of hEDS. Higher BS did not correlate with increased number of systemic manifestations in our cohort. Common comorbidities of hEDS were found with similar frequency in those who met 2017 criteria and those who did not. Based on our cohort, the 2017 hEDS diagnostic criteria require refinement to improve its diagnostic accuracy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据