↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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

Overview of attention for article published in The Application of Clinical Genetics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome
Published in
The Application of Clinical Genetics, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/tacg.s60472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yskert von Kodolitsch, Julie De Backer, Helke Schüler, Peter Bannas, Cyrus Behzadi, Alexander M Bernhardt, Mathias Hillebrand, Bettina Fuisting, Sara Sheikhzadeh, Meike Rybczynski, Tilo Kölbel, Klaus Püschel, Stefan Blankenberg, Peter N Robinson

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Student > Master 14 10%
Other 11 8%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 36 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 37 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2024.
All research outputs
#6,695,559
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from The Application of Clinical Genetics
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,382
of 282,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Application of Clinical Genetics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them