Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on November 15, 2007
Rheumatology 2007 46(12):1835-1841; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kem290
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/12/1835    most recent
kem290v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Juul-Kristensen, B.
Right arrow Articles by Remvig, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Juul-Kristensen, B.
Right arrow Articles by Remvig, L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Benign Joint Hypermobility Syndrome
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Inter-examiner reproducibility of tests and criteria for generalized joint hypermobility and benign joint hypermobility syndrome

B. Juul-Kristensen1, H. Røgind2, D. V. Jensen3 and L. Remvig1

1Department of Medical Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital, Copenhagen, 2Department of Rheumatology, Frederiksberg Hospital and 3Department of Rheumatology, Hospital of Nordsjælland, Hørsholm, Denmark.

Correspondence to: B. Juul-Kristensen, Department of Medical Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, Dk-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. E-mail: birgit.juul.kristensen{at}rh.regionh.dk; bjkprivat{at}mail.dk


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Objective. To test the reproducibility of tests and criteria for generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) and benign joint hypermobility syndrome (BJHS).

Methods. A standardized protocol for clinical reproducibility studies was followed using a three-phase study (with a training, an overall agreement and a test phase). An overall agreement of at least 0.80 was required to proceed to the test phase. Phases 1, 2 and 3 used 14 patients (with varying degrees of hypermobility), 20 patients (50% cases) and 40 patients (50% cases), respectively. The inclusion criterion for cases was hypermobility (patients with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or BJHS) and for controls, non-hypermobility (patients with shoulder and/or back pain); patients were selected from patients’ files (phases 1 and 2) or included consecutively from our outpatient clinic (phase 3).

Results. The overall agreement in phase 2 was 0.95 for GJH and 0.90 for BJHS. Reproducibility for diagnosing GJH and BJHS in phase 3 showed kappa values of 0.74 and 0.84, respectively. Kappa in the Beighton tests for diagnosing GJH (currently or historically) was generally above 0.80, except for the fifth fingers and elbows (≥0.60). In the Brighton tests for diagnosing BJHS, kappa was above 0.73, except for the skin signs (0.63). Lowest kappa was found in the Rotès-Quérol tests, where it was ≥0.57, except for the right shoulder (0.31).

Conclusion. We found a good-to-excellent reproducibility of tests and criteria for GJH and BJHS. Future research on the validity of the tests and criteria for joint hypermobility is urgently needed.

KEY WORDS: Hypermobility, Beighton tests, Brighton criteria, Rotès-Quérol tests, Standardized protocol


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Joint hypermobility (JH), i.e. increased joint range of motion (ROM), is seen either as a localized condition (LJH)—e.g. in a single joint—or a more generalized (GJH) one. When seen in parallel with musculoskeletal problems, the total condition is recognized as pathological, called hypermobility syndrome (HMS).

A dichotomous principle for judgement of JH was introduced more than 40 yrs ago. Instead of diagnosing hypermobility through ROM in degrees, several authors used fulfilment of a certain extreme ROM as criterion for hypermobility [1–3]. The tests used were revised [4–6], and currently the Beighton tests have gained international acceptance and seem to be the most widely used tests today for diagnosing general joint hypermobility (GJH). Curiously, the Beighton tests have only been described by five photos and a legend [6]. In the Spanish-speaking countries though, the Rotès-Quérol tests have mostly been used [3, 4], supplementing the Beighton tests with tests for the shoulder, the cervical spine, the hip and the toe.

Two studies have reported data on inter-examiner reproducibility of hypermobility tests. In one study, kappa for the different Beighton tests varied between 0.79 and 0.93 and for the additional Rotès-Quérol tests between 0.44 and 1.00 [7]. In the other study, the same Beighton tests, except for one (fifth finger), showed kappa between 0.44 and 1.00 [8]. No studies have reported data on intra-examiner reproducibility of these hypermobility tests.

The term GJH indicates that ROM in general is increased compared with the mean ROM of the general population. GJH is claimed to be present in ~5–15% of the general population, to be more frequent among children than among adults and to be slightly more frequent among girls/women than among boys/men [9]. However, there is no universally accepted criterion for GJH, and, except for one study that has tested the Beighton tests towards a global index [10], neither the Beighton tests nor the criterion for GJH have been tested for validity [11]. Several different cut points for GJH have been used, e.g. a Beighton score of ≥6 positive tests out of 9 [12], ≥5 positive tests [13] and ≥4 positive tests [14]. Nevertheless, the diagnostic reproducibility has only been reported when using ≥6 positive tests for GJH with the result: good to excellent [12].

HMS was first described by Kirk et al. [2] as a pathological condition characterized by JH and musculoskeletal complaints. HMS was later renamed benign joint hypermobility syndrome (BJHS), and a set of tests, signs and symptoms—the Brighton criteria—was suggested and later revised [14]. These criteria include both subjective and objective findings, of which some are also included in the set of criteria for the more serious diseases with hypermobility, such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), Marfan syndrome (MF) and Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI). The criteria for BJHS include two major and/or eight minor criteria (Appendix 1). The two major criteria, a Beighton score ≥4 positive tests out of 9 (either currently or historically) and arthralgia in ≥4 joints for more than 3 months, are more or less given a priori. However, a scientific basis for the minor criteria has only vaguely been described [14, 15]. Neither data on reproducibility nor on the validity of the Brighton criteria for BJHS have been reported.

In one of the aforementioned studies, the authors were aware of increasing the overall agreement through a training phase, but the overall agreement was not reported [7]. Neither study [7, 8] took the prevalence of the condition in the sample population into consideration before calculating kappa.

The aim of this study was to analyse the inter-examiner reproducibility of first, the criteria for the diagnoses GJH and BJHS; second, the Beighton tests; and third, supplementing Rotès-Quérol tests [4] and the tests for BJHS (the Brighton criteria). In addition, the aim was to analyse the agreement or the mutual dependencies between the different Brighton tests and criteria and the final diagnosis of BJHS.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Study design and tests
In order to optimize the conditions for analysing reproducibility of the tests and diagnoses, a three-phase study was performed as described in a standardized protocol for clinical reproducibility and validity studies [16]. In all the three phases, the included tests were the Beighton tests [6] and the Brighton criteria for BJHS [14] (Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix 1). Performance of the Beighton tests was measured according to photographs [6] and descriptions [14]. Each Beighton test started with a performance of the test by the examiner along with a question. Two of the tests (the first and fifth finger tests) were performed passively by the patients themselves and without muscle contractions. The three other tests (knee, elbow and forward bent back) were performed in a position where the passive structures were challenged mostly (i.e. in extreme positions). Three Rotès-Qúerol tests for hypermobility were included, representing the hip, the shoulder and the cervical spine [4], since these joints are not represented in the Beighton tests (Table 3 and Appendix 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Kappa values (99% CI) presenting current, and current or historical scores of the Beighton tests: for diagnosing general joint hypermobility (GJH) (phase 3)

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Kappa values (99% CI) presenting current, and current or historical scores of the tests used in the Brighton criteria for diagnosing Benign Joint Hypermobility Syndrome (BJHS) (phase 3)

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 3. Kappa values (99% CI) presenting current, and current or historical scores of the Rotès-Quérol tests (phase 3)

 
A standardized clinical protocol was developed (Appendix 1), including the tests for current and historical information. Only if a test was negative currently was the patient asked whether it had been possible to perform a positive test previously (historical information). Each of the positive Beighton tests counted 1 point, giving a maximum of 9 points. Since there is no universally accepted cut-off level for the diagnosis of GJH, we defined a Beighton score of ≥5 positive tests out of 9 to be the criterion for GJH.

Initially, two examiners were trained in order to eliminate the subjective part of the test evaluation as much as possible through a detailed description of the tests, including cut-off points for judging a test as positive or negative—the training phase (phase 1). Second, an agreement phase (phase 2) was undertaken, and for dichotomous data, an observed agreement of ≥80% for both GJH and BJHS was decided in advance as a requirement for proceeding to the ‘real’ test phase (phase 3). If the overall agreement was <80%, phases 1 and 2 had to be repeated until the agreement was at least 80%. This would in turn include a new training phase and a revised test description.

Inter-examiner reproducibility with nominal data is usually calculated by Cohen's-{kappa}, which is dependent upon the overall agreement and upon the prevalence [17, 18]. Thus, in phases 2 and 3, the prevalence of the positive tests was designed to be close to 50% to facilitate the interpretation of results by maximizing kappa. Further, to avoid systematic bias, the sequence of the tests was performed in a random order.

Patients
Patients were aged between 18 and 71 yrs. Cases and controls for phases 1 and 2 were randomly selected from files of patients previously referred to the out-patient clinic of the Department of Medical Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation between 2000 and 2006, and were seen a minimum of 6 months prior to the experiment. Cases and controls in phase 3 were new patients referred to our out-patient clinic and consecutively included in the study. No matching criteria were applied.

Phase 1 included 14 cases with the inclusion criterion of 1–9 positive Beighton tests, and phase 2 included 10 cases with the diagnoses BJHS (ICD-10: DM 35.7) or EDS (ICD-10: DQ79.6) and 10 controls consisting of non-hypermobile patients with back or shoulder pain.

Phase 3 consisted of 20 patients referred for BJHS or EDS and 20 controls referred for back or shoulder pain. An arbitrary number of 40 patients was selected as a ‘statistical minimum’ to perform simple reproducibility studies and as a practical choice to make the study easy and cheap to perform by not being too large [16].

The Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, approved the experimental protocol (jnr. KF 01-2006-178). Each patient gave written informed consent according to the Declaration of Helsinki [19].

Procedures
All tests were performed in a random order with respect to right and left side and to the test sequence. In phase 1, the examiners (A and B) were unblinded, and the test results were discussed until consensus was reached, and the test description was revised if necessary. In phases 2 and 3, each examiner was blinded with respect to the test results by the other examiner and the diagnosis. Half of the patients (cases as well as controls) were examined first by examiner A and the other half by examiner B. Two observers (C and D) checked the blinding of the examiners, the performance of the tests in a randomized order and in accordance to the test description. If a current test could not be performed (e.g. because of pain) and if a patient could not remember whether a specific condition had been present historically, the test results were coded as a negative answer (0).

Data analysis and statistics
For the dichotomous data, Cohen's {kappa}, statistic [presented with 99% confidence intervals (CI)] was used for each of the single tests and criteria for GJH and BJHS [18] and also for the mutual dependencies between the Brighton tests and signs and the final diagnosis of BJHS [16]. For the continuous data, intra-class correlation coefficient [(ICC) model 2.1, two-way random effects model] [20, 21] was calculated for the total scores and signs. McNemar's test was used to test for significant differences between the two examiners regarding frequency of positive tests and Mann–Whitney's U-test for differences between cases and controls with respect to age, with P < 0.05 as the level of significance. The statistical program used was SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA, version 13.00).


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusions
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
In phase 1, tests for the knees, the elbows, the cervical spine, the hips and the shoulders needed most training and discussions, including the questions on historical information.

In phase 2, the overall agreement for GJH was 0.95 (19 out of 20 patients were classified equally, 7 as positive), and for BJHS it was 0.90 (18 out of 20 patients were classified equally, 11 as positive).

In phase 3, cases were significantly younger than controls (34.2 yrs, S.D. 14.3 vs 46.4 yrs, S.D. 17.0, P = 0.02) (Table 4). Using McNemar's test, there was no significant difference between the two examiners, except for left cervical rotation in the Rotès-Quérol test (currently) (Table 3). Kappa values of the Beighton tests (currently) were between 0.61 and 1.00, except for the left fifth finger and left elbow, where it was 0.40 and 0.34, respectively (Table 1). When including historical data, meaning either a current or historical prevalence, kappa increased to 0.71 and 0.63 for those two tests. For the total Beighton score, either currently or historically, ICC was 0.91. When calculating kappa for the diagnosis of GJH, it was 0.74, with an overall agreement of 0.88 (35 patients were classified equally, 14 as positive). Kappa values for Rotès-Quérol tests were generally lower, between 0.31 and 0.80, currently as well as either currently or historically (Table 3), and lowest kappa values were right cervical rotation, right shoulder rotation and right hip abduction. ICC for the Rotès-Quérol tests was 0.83.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 4. Demographic data for patients (cases and controls) in phases 2 and 3

 
Kappa for the various Brighton tests were above 0.73 (Table 2), except for abnormal skin signs and ‘marfanoid habitus’ signs (between 0.55 and 0.66), while ICC for the total number of minor criteria was 0.87. For the diagnosis of BJHS, kappa was 0.84, with an overall agreement of 0.93 (37 patients were classified equally, 23 as positive).

By means of the {kappa}-statistics, the mutual dependencies between the single Brighton tests and signs and the final BJHS diagnosis were calculated, and thus the frequency by which each test and sign was used for diagnosing BJHS was illustrated for each examiner compared with a random frequency. In Table 5, kappa values indicated that examiners A and B particularly used major criteria 1 and 2, besides the minor criteria 1, 6, 7 and the presence of a first degree relative to make the final BJHS diagnosis. Furthermore, the examiners agreed to diagnose BJHS mainly by the combinations of two major or four minor criteria.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 5. The mutual dependencies between the major/minor criteria and the final BJHS diagnosis and between the four combinations of diagnostic criteria for BJHS (phase 3) and the final BJHS diagnosis, judged by {kappa}-statistics (99% CI) for each of the examiners

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusions
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
In spite of a different cut-off level used for the diagnosis of GJH, the present reproducibility of the criterion ({kappa} = 0.74) was at the same level as previously reported (0.78) [12]. For the diagnosis of BJHS, kappa was 0.84 that is usually accepted as a good-to-excellent level of reproducibility. The present reproducibility of the Beighton tests—kappa values mostly above 0.80—was at the same level as found in previous studies [7, 8], except for the fifth fingers and elbows (≥0.60), and also the present higher kappa for the Beighton than the Rotès-Quérol tests is in agreement with previous results [7]. For most of the tests used in the Brighton criteria, kappa was well above 0.73, except for the abnormal skin signs (0.63). There is no other reproducibility study to compare the present results on the Brighton criteria with. All ICC values (the number of Beighton tests, the Rotès-Quérol tests and the number of Brighton criteria) were good to excellent (0.83–0.91).

In none of the two basic test descriptions for the Beighton tests [6, 14] is it stated precisely whether the tests should be performed actively or passively, and naturally this may be a potential source of discrepancy in the interpretation of results from different studies. With this strict and standardized protocol of training and testing, generalizability to the clinical practice may be low, unless the health personnel is relevantly trained. It must be noted that generalizability to, for example, other professional groups is not only depending on the examiners’ clinical experience in joint mobility measurements, etc. (here it was many years), but also on the extent that the examiners are able to follow the strict test procedures according to a strict and standardized protocol.

In one of the two only reproducibility studies [7], kappa was between 0.79 and 0.93 for the Beighton tests and between 0.44 and 1.00 for the Rotès-Quérol tests. In that study, the prevalence of cases (a score of ≥5) was 114 out of 173 (66%). In contrast, the second reproducibility study [8] reported lower kappa values on four of the Beighton tests (between 0.44 and 0.82 for two experienced rheumatologists) and even lower kappa when comparing experienced rheumatologists with inexperienced rheumatologists or with the parents of the tested children (kappa between <0.40 and 1.00). In that study, the population was a random selection of 100 children, and the prevalence of positive tests varied between 37 and 50% when tested by the parents and between 13 and 88% when tested by experienced rheumatologists. Taken together, both studies had a prevalence mostly well above or below 50%, influencing kappa negatively [17, 18].

The missing training phase in one of the studies [8], in addition to the missing overall agreement phase in both studies, may have further influenced kappa negatively. A missing randomization of the test sequence in one of the studies [7] may result in a bias towards a higher kappa. In both the studies, the examiners were blinded, but in the present study, where also they were blinded, we cannot exclude that the results were influenced by the number of older participants among cases in phase 3. However, the difference between the groups was only 12 yrs as a mean, and patients’ ages are not always easy to judge by sight; moreover the number of tests was large (n = 46), and hence this factor is less likely to influence the present results.

Some of the reasons for the present low kappa values with respect to current Beighton (left fifth finger and left elbow) and Rotès-Quérol tests (right cervical rotation and right hip abduction) could also be the low prevalence of positive tests (between 18 and 20% prevalence) as seen in previous studies. Including historical information, the prevalence increased remarkably along with the kappa. This is illustrated clearly in the left elbow and the left fifth finger, where the overall agreement increased by 6 and 10% and the prevalence increased by 65% in both the tests. At the same time, the probability by chance only decreased by 16 and 20%. For another of the Rotès-Quérol tests, though (right shoulder external rotation), a low current prevalence was also found. Here, the prevalence only increased a little by including historical presence (from 10 to 13%), while the observed agreement and the probability by chance decreased (from 93 to 85% and from 85 to 77%), and this resulted in a considerably decreasing kappa (from 0.53 to 0.31, equal to a 42% decrease).

For all the Rotès-Quérol tests, the generally low kappa values may also be explained by a missing requirement of an overall agreement of at least 80% in phase 2. Although the overall agreement was mostly high (between 0.70 and 0.90), there was actually a significant difference between the examiners in one of the tests (left cervical rotation test), indicating a difficulty in performing, judging and interpreting the patients’ historical information. This may indicate some unrecognized difficulties with these tests. Generally, the Rotès-Quérol tests were also the tests with the lowest kappa in one of the previous reproducibility studies [7], although they were higher than in the present study (with higher prevalences), but they also had no randomization of the test sequence. In future studies, these tests need to be standardized further or be substituted by other tests for hypermobility, e.g. other joints or planes of movement.

A low prevalence of skin hyperextensibility was also seen (28%), which may very well be one of the reasons for this relatively low kappa (0.55). One may argue that the cut point, ≥3 cm for skin hyperextensibility, was too high as an arbitrary level. However, neither the Villefranche criteria [13] nor the Brighton criteria [14] give any level for abnormal skin extensibility. A level of >4 cm has been used as a pathological level for the EDS diagnosis [22], and as BJHS is considered a less serious condition than EDS, we selected the level ≥3 cm as the pathological level for BJHS.

Generally, it may be argued that missing data were reduced by coding non-performance of a test (because of pain e.g.) and non-remembering of a historical presence as negative answers. Patients could not perform the movement due to pain in only 1.5% of the tests; thus, the influence on kappa is small. Patients could not remember historical presence in 28% of the questions, which is a relatively large percentage (15% corresponding to the Rotès-Quérol tests, 2% for family hypermobility and 11% for the Beighton scores). Unfortunately, we are not able to give a clear estimate of this influence on kappa, since there was no clear pattern of how it affected the observed probability and the probability by chance. Since a clinician normally will interpret an unclear historical answer as a ‘no’, we found it relevant to interpret the answers in the same way. However, this high percentage naturally questions the use of this parameter as a valid criterion.

In addition to reproducibility, the criterion validity of the tests and criteria must be known. Although the present study was not designed as a validity study, we analysed the influence of further requirements for diagnosing GJH on the number of patients with GJH, besides the mutual dependencies between the major respective minor criteria and the final BJHS diagnosis.

The number of patients diagnosed with GJH, which is claimed to be a general condition and consequently should require positive tests for both upper and lower parts of the body, was reduced in the present study by 2 out of 14 patients (14%) with these requirements. If, additionally, a positive back test was required, 1 out of the 14 patients (7%) was excluded from the diagnosis of GJH. Whether a larger percentage of patients would be excluded when using these additional criteria in a larger population is not known.

The criteria for BJHS were primarily proposed for research protocols [23], but were also recommended as a useful clinically diagnostic tool, although no studies support the validity of these tests and criteria. In the present study, some of the tests were not positive at all and thus infrequently used for the diagnosis of BJHS (i.e. bilateral ptosis, anti-mongoloid slant and some of the anthropometric dimensions for ‘marfanoid habitus’, Beighton score <4, arthralgia in less than four joints and varicose veins), while others (e.g. myopia) appeared frequently in both cases and controls (Table 5). In total, 14 patients (35%) had a positive family history, but of those only six (15%) patients had two minor criteria in addition, and were given the diagnosis of BJHS. Kappa was only 0.16 and 0.25 (Table 5), showing that the examiners in diagnosing BJHS rarely used this criterion. Neither did the exclusion of all the minor criteria seem to affect the reproducibility of diagnosing BJHS in the present study (also a kappa value of 0.84). The ‘true’ relevance of these minor criteria must therefore be tested in a large cohort of hypermobile patients compared with a sex- and age-matched control cohort. Further, whether the criteria for BJHS and GJH are valid in predicting, e.g. osteoarthritis and/or other musculoskeletal diseases, also remains to be tested longitudinally.


   Conclusions
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Following a strict and standardized protocol for clinical reproducibility studies, the reproducibility of diagnosing GJH and BJHS was found to be high, with kappa values of 0.74 and 0.84, respectively. Additionally, the Beighton tests for GJH (either currently or historically) and the Brighton criteria for BJHS showed a good reproducibility, with kappa values mostly above 0.80 and 0.73, respectively. However, reproducibility of the Rotès-Quérol tests (currently or historically) for hypermobility showed considerably lower kappa values, mostly between 0.31 and 0.80, and consequently these tests need to be refined in the future. Further research on the validity of tests and criteria for GJH and BJHS is urgently needed.

Formula


   Appendix 1.
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Appendix 1.
Acknowledgements
 References
 
Test protocol for reproducibility study of the Beighton tests and criteria for generalized joint hypermobility and of the Brighton tests and criteria for benign joint hypermobility syndrome

  1. Passive apposition of the thumb to the flexor side of the forearm (shoulder 90° flexed, elbow extended and hand pronated), tested on right and left side, is performed by the patient after the following procedure. The examiner performs the test and asks: ‘Can you with a straight arm move your thumb down so it touches the lower part of the forearm?’
    If the test is negative, meaning no touch, the examiner asks: ‘Have you been able to do this previously?’
  2. Passive dorsiflexion of the little finger >90° (elbow flexed 90°, the forearm and hand pronated resting on a table), tested on right and left side, is performed by the patient after the following procedure. The examiner performs the test and asks: ‘Can you with the forearm resting on the table, move your little finger, so it is pointing a little bit backwards?’
    If the test is negative, the examiner asks: ‘Have you been able to do this previously?’
  3. Passive hyperextension of the elbow >10° (shoulder 90° abducted and hand supinated), tested on right and left side, is performed by the patient after the following procedure. The examiner performs the test and asks: ‘How much are you able to overstretch your elbow in this position (illustrated by the examiner) with your palm pointing towards the roof?’
    If the test is negative, meaning no overstretch, the examiner asks: ‘Have you been able to overstretch the elbow previously?’
  4. Passive hyperextension of the knee >10° (standing), tested on right and left side, is performed by the patient after the following procedure. The examiner performs the test and asks: ‘How much are you able to overstretch your knee when you are standing straight up?’
    If the test is negative, meaning no overstretch, the examiner asks: ‘Have you been able to overstretch the knee previously?’
  5. Forward flexion of the trunk, with knees straight, so that the palms of the hands rest easily on the floor, is performed by the patient after the following procedure. The examiner performs the test and asks: ‘Can you with straight knees bend your body forward and place both palms easily on the ground?’
    If the test is negative, meaning no touch on the ground with the whole palm of the hands, the examiner asks: ‘Have you been able to do this previously?’

The tests (currently and historically) used for BJHS included in the protocol were the following. The two major criteria include:

  1. A Beighton score 4/9 or greater (currently or historically, results transferred from the above described test protocol).
  2. Arthralgia (≥3 months) in ≥4 joints (currently or historically), the examiner asks ‘Have you or have you had constant joint pain for more than three months?’ If yes: ‘In how many joints at the same time?’

The eight minor criteria include:

  1. Beighton score of 1–3 out of 9, and if aged >50 yrs, a Beighton score of 0–3 (currently or historically, results transferred from the above described test protocol).
  2. Arthralgia (≥3 months) in 1–3 joints, and/or back pain, and/or spondylosis, spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis (currently or historically, results may be transferred from the above, described test protocol). The examiner asks: ‘Have you or have you had constant joint pain for more than three months?’ If yes, the examiner asks: ‘In how many joints at the same time?’ ‘Have you or have you had back pain for more than three months, or have you had an X-ray diagnosis of spondylosis, spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis in your back?’
    (Major and minor 1 as well as major and minor 2 criteria are mutually exclusive).
  3. Dislocation/subluxation in more than one joint, or in one joint on more than one occasion (historically). The examiner asks: ‘Has one of your joints been dislocated?’ If yes, the examiner asks: ‘How many different joints?’ and ‘Has it happened more than once?’
  4. Soft tissue rheumatism ≥3 lesions, e.g. epicondylitis, and/or tenosynovitis, and/or bursitis (historically). The examiner asks: ‘Have you had epicondylitis, tenosynovitis or bursitis?’ If yes, the examiner asks: ‘Have you had three or more than three incidents?’
  5. Marfanoid habitus, either one of: tall slim, arm span/height ratio >1.03, or upper/lower segment ratio <0.89, or arachnodactyly (positive Steinberg sign/Wrist sign) (currently)
  6. Abnormal skin, either one of: striae distensae, or skin hyperextensibility (≥3 cm on the volar aspect of the forearm), or thin skin or papyraceous scarring (>1/2 cm broad papyraceous scars) (currently). The examiner asks: ‘Do you have any stretch marks or broad scars?’
  7. Eye signs, either one of: drooping eyelids, or myopia or antimongoloid slant (currently).
  8. Other signs, either one of: varicose veins, or hernia, or uterine/rectal prolapse (currently or historically). The examiner asks: ‘Have you or have you had varicose veins, hernia or prolapsed uterus/rectum?’

The examiner question about hypermobility among relatives was: ‘Are your parents, brothers/sisters or children hypermobile?’

For the diagnosis of BJHS either two major criteria, one major and two minor criteria, four minor criteria or two minor criteria plus hypermobility in an unequivocally affected first degree relative. BJHS is excluded by presence of EDS, MF or OI.

Tests for hypermobility in the neck, the shoulder and the hip according to Rotès-Quérol (currently or historically) included:

  1. Active guided lateral rotation of the head as far as possible without lateral flexion. If the nose of the person points behind the frontal plane (>90°rotation), when sitting with straight back and neck, chin retracted, hands placed behind the body to stabilize the shoulder area, the test is judged to be positive. The examiner asks: ‘How far can you rotate your head to the side?’ If the test is negative, the examiner asks: ‘Have you previously been able to rotate your head more/so much that your nose was pointing backwards?’
  2. Active guided outward rotation of the shoulder joint as far as possible. If the forearm points behind frontal plane (>90°rotation) when sitting, straight back, upper arm along gravity, elbow joint in 90° of flexion and close to the body with forearm in neutral position, the test is judged to be positive. The examiner fixates the coracoid process and the acromion and moves the patient's forearm, and the examiner asks: ‘How far can you rotate your forearm to the side, while you keep your elbow close to your body?’ If the test is negative, the examiner asks: ‘Have you previously been able to rotate your forearm more/so that the forearm was pointing backwards?’
  3. Active guided abduction of the hip until the pelvis moves. If the leg can be abducted >45° from the neutral position when lying supine in the anatomically normal position, the test is judged to be positive. The examiner moves the calf with one hand and palpates the anterior superior iliac spine (SIAS) with the other hand, and asks: ‘How far can you with a straight knee move your leg to the side?’ If the test is negative, the examiner asks: ‘Have you previously been able to move it further out to the side/so far that you were almost able to do the splits?’


   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
References
 
The authors would like to thank their technical assistant Marianne Ibsen and medical student Marie Wetterslev for their skilful assistance. Consultant Richard Ellis, MD, Southhampton, UK, has kindly revised the English language.

Funding: The study was supported by the National Research Fund for Health and Disease, the Research Foundation of the Danish Physiotherapy Association, The National Health Service Research Fund for Promotion of Research in Physiotherapy, Britta Holles Foundation and the sawmill owner Jeppe Juhl and his wife Ovita Juhl's Foundation.

Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. Carter C, Wilkinson J. Persistent joint laxity and congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg (1964) 46B:40–5.
  2. Kirk JA, Ansell BM, Bywaters EG. The hypermobility syndrome. Musculoskeletal complaints associated with generalized joint hypermobility. Ann Rheum Dis (1967) 26:419–25.[Free Full Text]
  3. Rotès-Quérol J. [Articular laxity considered as factor of changes of the locomotor apparatus.]. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic (1957) 24:535–9.[Medline]
  4. Rotès-Quérol J, Duran J, Subiros R, Pifferer J, Gomez J. La laxité articulaire comme facteur d'alterations de l'appareil locomoteur (Nouvelle étude 1971). Rhumatologie Mai (1972) 24:179–91.
  5. Beighton P. Articular manifestations of the Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Semin Arthritis Rheum (1972) 1:246–61.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Beighton P, Solomon L, Soskolne CL. Articular mobility in an African population. Ann Rheum Dis (1973) 32:413–18.[Free Full Text]
  7. Bulbena A, Duro JC, Porta M, Faus S, Vallescar R, Martin-Santos R. Clinical assessment of hypermobility of joints: assembling criteria. J Rheumatol (1992) 19:115–22.[Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Hansen A, Damsgaard R, Kristensen JH, Baggers J, Remvig L. Interexaminer reliability of selected tests for hypermobility. J Orth Med (2002) 25:48–51.
  9. Remvig L, Jensen DV, Ward RC. Epidemiology of general joint hypermobility and basis for the proposed criteria for benign joint hypermobility syndrome: review of the literature. J Rheumatol (2007) 34:804–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Bird HA, Brodie DA, Wright V. Quantification of joint laxity. Rheumatol Rehabil (1979) 18:161–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Remvig L, Jensen DV, Ward RC. Are diagnostic criteria for general joint hypermobility and benign joint hypermobility syndrome based on reproducible and valid tests? A review of the literature. J Rheumatol (2007) 34:798–803.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Mikkelsson M, Salminen JJ, Kautiainen H. Joint hypermobility is not a contributing factor to musculoskeletal pain in pre-adolescents. J Rheumatol (1996) 23:1963–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Beighton P, De Paepe A, Steinmann B, Tsipouras P, Wenstrup RJ. Ehlers-Danlos syndromes: revised nosology, Villefranche, 1997. Ehlers-Danlos National Foundation (USA) and Ehlers-Danlos Support Group (UK). Am J Med Genet (1998) 77:31–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Grahame R, Bird HA, Child A. The revised (Brighton 1998) criteria for the diagnosis of benign joint hypermobility syndrome (BJHS). J Rheumatol (2000) 27:1777–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Bird HA. Special interest group for joint hypermobility. Br J Rheumatol (1993) 32:81.[Free Full Text]
  16. FIMM Academy. Reproducibility and validity, protocol formats for diagnostic procedures in manual/musculoskeletal medicine. (2007) Maastricht, The Netherlands: FIMM Academy for Manual/Musculoskeletal Medicine. www.fimm-online.com.
  17. Fleiss JL. Reliability of measurement. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. (1986) New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1–32.
  18. Altman DG. Inter-rater agreement. In: Practical statistics for medical research.—Altman DG, ed. (1996) London: Chapman and Hall. 403–9.
  19. Vollmann J, Winau R. Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code. Br Med J (1996) 313:1445–9.[Free Full Text]
  20. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull (1979) 86:420–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Denegar CR, Ball DW. Assessing reliability and precision of measurement: an introduction to intraclass correlation and standard error of mesurement. J Spor Rehabil (1993) 2:35–42.
  22. Holzberg M, Hewan-Lowe KO, Olansky AJ. The Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: recognition, characterization, and importance of a milder variant of the classic form. A preliminary study. J Am Acad Dermatol (1988) 19:656–66.[Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Grahame R. Hypermobility and hypermobility syndrome. In: Hypermobility syndrome - recognition and management for physiotherapists.—Keer R, Grahame R, eds. (2004) London: Elsevier Limited. 1–14.
Submitted 15 April 2007; revised version accepted 19 September 2007.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/12/1835    most recent
kem290v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Juul-Kristensen, B.
Right arrow Articles by Remvig, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Juul-Kristensen, B.
Right arrow Articles by Remvig, L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Benign Joint Hypermobility Syndrome
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?