ReviewThe application of clinical genetics2015
Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome.
Review in The application of clinical genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06257004 (Genome-wide Epistasis for Cardiovascular Severity in Marfan Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 72 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Genome-wide Epistasis for Cardiovascular Severity in Marfan Study
Who cites it
72 citing papers in PubMed, 163 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer Risk in Marfan Syndrome: A Swedish Population-Based Cohort Study.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Downregulation ofMolecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Article
- Article
- New CT-based dural ectasia criteria using machine learning to diagnose Marfan and Loeys-Dietz syndromes.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- Mitochondrial Dysfunction: A New Hallmark in Hereditable Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Development.Cells · 2025Review
- Cluster analysis of 100 Marfan patients based on aortic 4D flow MRI and Z-score: insights into disease heterogeneity and stratification of subgroups.European radiology · 2025Article
- Unraveling a novel FBN1 variant in Marfan syndrome with dilated aortic root manifestation.BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
- Case Report: AFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- The usefulness of the genetic panel in the classification and refinement of diagnostic accuracy of Mexican patients with Marfan syndrome and other connective tissue disorders.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
- Integrated DNA methylation analysis reveals a potential role for PTPRN2 in Marfan syndrome scoliosis.JOR spine · 2024Article
- Association of polymorphisms inOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024Article
- Carotid Dolichoarteriopathy (Elongation) of the Carotid Arteries in Patients with Ischemic Stroke Anamnesis.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Incidence and de novo mutation rate of Marfan syndrome and risk of ectopia lentis.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2023Article
- Transseptal approach for catheter ablation of left-sided accessory pathways in children with Marfan syndrome: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Italian Adults with Marfan Syndrome: Insights from a Secondary Analysis of a Cross-Sectional Study.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Discussing psychological and psychotherapeutic support for patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) and their family: an example of a structured program in Italy.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- A cross-sectional study on fatigue, anxiety, and symptoms of depression and their relation with medical status in adult patients with Marfan syndrome. Psychological consequences in Marfan syndrome.Clinical genetics · 2022Article
- Review
- Frequency of Arrhythmias and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome in Patients With Marfan Syndrome: A Nationwide Inpatient Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.