Cargando…

Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome

Three international nosologies have been proposed for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome (MFS): the Berlin nosology in 1988; the Ghent nosology in 1996 (Ghent-1); and the revised Ghent nosology in 2010 (Ghent-2). We reviewed the literature and discussed the challenges and concepts of diagnosing MFS in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: von Kodolitsch, Yskert, De Backer, Julie, Schüler, Helke, Bannas, Peter, Behzadi, Cyrus, Bernhardt, Alexander M, Hillebrand, Mathias, Fuisting, Bettina, Sheikhzadeh, Sara, Rybczynski, Meike, Kölbel, Tilo, Püschel, Klaus, Blankenberg, Stefan, Robinson, Peter N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26124674
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TACG.S60472
_version_ 1782377606468861952
author von Kodolitsch, Yskert
De Backer, Julie
Schüler, Helke
Bannas, Peter
Behzadi, Cyrus
Bernhardt, Alexander M
Hillebrand, Mathias
Fuisting, Bettina
Sheikhzadeh, Sara
Rybczynski, Meike
Kölbel, Tilo
Püschel, Klaus
Blankenberg, Stefan
Robinson, Peter N
author_facet von Kodolitsch, Yskert
De Backer, Julie
Schüler, Helke
Bannas, Peter
Behzadi, Cyrus
Bernhardt, Alexander M
Hillebrand, Mathias
Fuisting, Bettina
Sheikhzadeh, Sara
Rybczynski, Meike
Kölbel, Tilo
Püschel, Klaus
Blankenberg, Stefan
Robinson, Peter N
author_sort von Kodolitsch, Yskert
collection PubMed
description Three international nosologies have been proposed for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome (MFS): the Berlin nosology in 1988; the Ghent nosology in 1996 (Ghent-1); and the revised Ghent nosology in 2010 (Ghent-2). We reviewed the literature and discussed the challenges and concepts of diagnosing MFS in adults. Ghent-1 proposed more stringent clinical criteria, which led to the confirmation of MFS in only 32%–53% of patients formerly diagnosed with MFS according to the Berlin nosology. Conversely, both the Ghent-1 and Ghent-2 nosologies diagnosed MFS, and both yielded similar frequencies of MFS in persons with a causative FBN1 mutation (90% for Ghent-1 versus 92% for Ghent-2) and in persons not having a causative FBN1 mutation (15% versus 13%). Quality criteria for diagnostic methods include objectivity, reliability, and validity. However, the nosology-based diagnosis of MFS lacks a diagnostic reference standard and, hence, quality criteria such as sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy cannot be assessed. Medical utility of diagnosis implies congruency with the historical criteria of MFS, as well as with information about the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnostic triggers, prognostic triggers, and potential complications of MFS. In addition, social and psychological utilities of diagnostic criteria include acceptance by patients, patient organizations, clinicians and scientists, practicability, costs, and the reduction of anxiety. Since the utility of a diagnosis or exclusion of MFS is context-dependent, prioritization of utilities is a strategic decision in the process of nosology development. Screening tests for MFS should be used to identify persons with MFS. To confirm the diagnosis of MFS, Ghent-1 and Ghent-2 perform similarly, but Ghent-2 is easier to use. To maximize the utility of the diagnostic criteria of MFS, a fair and transparent process of nosology development is essential.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4476478
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44764782015-06-29 Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome von Kodolitsch, Yskert De Backer, Julie Schüler, Helke Bannas, Peter Behzadi, Cyrus Bernhardt, Alexander M Hillebrand, Mathias Fuisting, Bettina Sheikhzadeh, Sara Rybczynski, Meike Kölbel, Tilo Püschel, Klaus Blankenberg, Stefan Robinson, Peter N Appl Clin Genet Review Three international nosologies have been proposed for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome (MFS): the Berlin nosology in 1988; the Ghent nosology in 1996 (Ghent-1); and the revised Ghent nosology in 2010 (Ghent-2). We reviewed the literature and discussed the challenges and concepts of diagnosing MFS in adults. Ghent-1 proposed more stringent clinical criteria, which led to the confirmation of MFS in only 32%–53% of patients formerly diagnosed with MFS according to the Berlin nosology. Conversely, both the Ghent-1 and Ghent-2 nosologies diagnosed MFS, and both yielded similar frequencies of MFS in persons with a causative FBN1 mutation (90% for Ghent-1 versus 92% for Ghent-2) and in persons not having a causative FBN1 mutation (15% versus 13%). Quality criteria for diagnostic methods include objectivity, reliability, and validity. However, the nosology-based diagnosis of MFS lacks a diagnostic reference standard and, hence, quality criteria such as sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy cannot be assessed. Medical utility of diagnosis implies congruency with the historical criteria of MFS, as well as with information about the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnostic triggers, prognostic triggers, and potential complications of MFS. In addition, social and psychological utilities of diagnostic criteria include acceptance by patients, patient organizations, clinicians and scientists, practicability, costs, and the reduction of anxiety. Since the utility of a diagnosis or exclusion of MFS is context-dependent, prioritization of utilities is a strategic decision in the process of nosology development. Screening tests for MFS should be used to identify persons with MFS. To confirm the diagnosis of MFS, Ghent-1 and Ghent-2 perform similarly, but Ghent-2 is easier to use. To maximize the utility of the diagnostic criteria of MFS, a fair and transparent process of nosology development is essential. Dove Medical Press 2015-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4476478/ /pubmed/26124674 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TACG.S60472 Text en © 2015 von Kodolitsch et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
von Kodolitsch, Yskert
De Backer, Julie
Schüler, Helke
Bannas, Peter
Behzadi, Cyrus
Bernhardt, Alexander M
Hillebrand, Mathias
Fuisting, Bettina
Sheikhzadeh, Sara
Rybczynski, Meike
Kölbel, Tilo
Püschel, Klaus
Blankenberg, Stefan
Robinson, Peter N
Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome
title Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome
title_full Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome
title_fullStr Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome
title_full_unstemmed Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome
title_short Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome
title_sort perspectives on the revised ghent criteria for the diagnosis of marfan syndrome
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26124674
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TACG.S60472
work_keys_str_mv AT vonkodolitschyskert perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT debackerjulie perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT schulerhelke perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT bannaspeter perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT behzadicyrus perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT bernhardtalexanderm perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT hillebrandmathias perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT fuistingbettina perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT sheikhzadehsara perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT rybczynskimeike perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT kolbeltilo perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT puschelklaus perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT blankenbergstefan perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome
AT robinsonpetern perspectivesontherevisedghentcriteriaforthediagnosisofmarfansyndrome