PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Generalized joint hypermobility is an inherited collagen phenotype based on clinical assessments of joint mobility. However, there is no international consensus to define generalized joint hypermobility, both considering which joint mobility tests should be included and limits for joint hypermobility.
OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the study was to identify a subset of joint mobility tests to define generalized joint hypermobility. A further aim was to evaluate standardized limits for the classification of hypermobility in different joint types throughout the body.
METHODS: A total of 255 early pregnant women were included in the study. Joint mobility was measured according to a structured protocol. Correlation and principal component analysis were used to find a subset of joint mobility tests. To classify hypermobility in each joint mobility test, five different standard deviation levels plus 0.84, plus 1.04, plus 1.28, plus 1.64 and plus 2 were used, corresponding to 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% and 2.5% of the normal distribution.
RESULTS: No subset of joint mobility test could define generalized joint hypermobility. The higher the standard deviation levels, the higher the limit to classify joint hypermobility and the lower the prevalence. As a result of no subset of joint mobility tests were found to define generalized joint hypermobility, different combinations of major and minor joints in upper and lower limbs and the axial skeleton, were systematically developed. These combinations were evaluated for each standard deviation level, resulting in a prevalence of generalized joint hypermobility between 0% and 12.9% and a clear variation in how the hypermobile joint mobility tests were distributed.
CONCLUSIONS: It is probably not possible to choose a subset of joint mobility tests to define GJH. In order not to overlook generalized joint hypermobility, a broader assessment of different joint types and sizes of joints appears to be needed. The prevalence of generalized joint hypermobility is dependent on joint hypermobility limit and the chosen combination of joint mobility tests.
OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the study was to identify a subset of joint mobility tests to define generalized joint hypermobility. A further aim was to evaluate standardized limits for the classification of hypermobility in different joint types throughout the body.
METHODS: A total of 255 early pregnant women were included in the study. Joint mobility was measured according to a structured protocol. Correlation and principal component analysis were used to find a subset of joint mobility tests. To classify hypermobility in each joint mobility test, five different standard deviation levels plus 0.84, plus 1.04, plus 1.28, plus 1.64 and plus 2 were used, corresponding to 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% and 2.5% of the normal distribution.
RESULTS: No subset of joint mobility test could define generalized joint hypermobility. The higher the standard deviation levels, the higher the limit to classify joint hypermobility and the lower the prevalence. As a result of no subset of joint mobility tests were found to define generalized joint hypermobility, different combinations of major and minor joints in upper and lower limbs and the axial skeleton, were systematically developed. These combinations were evaluated for each standard deviation level, resulting in a prevalence of generalized joint hypermobility between 0% and 12.9% and a clear variation in how the hypermobile joint mobility tests were distributed.
CONCLUSIONS: It is probably not possible to choose a subset of joint mobility tests to define GJH. In order not to overlook generalized joint hypermobility, a broader assessment of different joint types and sizes of joints appears to be needed. The prevalence of generalized joint hypermobility is dependent on joint hypermobility limit and the chosen combination of joint mobility tests.
摘要：
背景：基于关节运动性的临床评估，广义关节过度运动性是一种遗传性胶原表型。然而,没有国际共识来定义广义的关节过度活动，既考虑应包括哪些关节移动性测试，又考虑对关节过度移动性的限制。
目的：本研究的主要目的是确定关节活动度测试的一个子集，以定义广义的关节过度活动度。另一个目的是评估整个身体不同关节类型中过度活动分类的标准化限制。
方法：本研究共纳入255例早期妊娠妇女。根据结构化协议测量联合移动性。使用相关性和主成分分析来找到联合移动性测试的子集。为了对每个联合移动性测试中的超移动性进行分类，使用了五个不同的标准偏差水平加0.84，加1.04，加1.28，加1.64和加2，相当于20%，15%,10%,5%和2.5%的正态分布。
结果：没有关节活动度测试的子集可以定义广义的关节高活动度。标准偏差水平越高，关节过度活动分类的界限越高,患病率越低.由于没有发现关节移动性测试的子集可以定义广义的关节超移动性，上肢和下肢的主要和次要关节以及轴向骨骼的不同组合，是系统开发的。针对每个标准偏差水平评估这些组合，导致0％至12.9％的广泛性关节过度活动的患病率，并且在过度活动关节活动测试的分布方式上存在明显差异。
结论：可能无法选择关节活动能力测试的子集来定义GJH。为了不忽视广义的关节过度活动，似乎需要对不同的关节类型和关节大小进行更广泛的评估.广义关节过度移动的患病率取决于关节过度移动极限和关节移动测试的选择组合。
目的：本研究的主要目的是确定关节活动度测试的一个子集，以定义广义的关节过度活动度。另一个目的是评估整个身体不同关节类型中过度活动分类的标准化限制。
方法：本研究共纳入255例早期妊娠妇女。根据结构化协议测量联合移动性。使用相关性和主成分分析来找到联合移动性测试的子集。为了对每个联合移动性测试中的超移动性进行分类，使用了五个不同的标准偏差水平加0.84，加1.04，加1.28，加1.64和加2，相当于20%，15%,10%,5%和2.5%的正态分布。
结果：没有关节活动度测试的子集可以定义广义的关节高活动度。标准偏差水平越高，关节过度活动分类的界限越高,患病率越低.由于没有发现关节移动性测试的子集可以定义广义的关节超移动性，上肢和下肢的主要和次要关节以及轴向骨骼的不同组合，是系统开发的。针对每个标准偏差水平评估这些组合，导致0％至12.9％的广泛性关节过度活动的患病率，并且在过度活动关节活动测试的分布方式上存在明显差异。
结论：可能无法选择关节活动能力测试的子集来定义GJH。为了不忽视广义的关节过度活动，似乎需要对不同的关节类型和关节大小进行更广泛的评估.广义关节过度移动的患病率取决于关节过度移动极限和关节移动测试的选择组合。
