Introduction
Method
Search strategy and study selection
S1 | ‘Hypermobile EDS’ OR ‘hEDS’ OR ‘Hypermobility spectrum disorder’ OR ‘HSD’ OR ‘Ehlers-Danlos syndrome hypermobility type’ OR ‘EDS-HT’ OR ‘Joint hypermobility syndrome’ OR ‘JHS’ OR ‘Ehlers-Danlos Type III’ |
S2 | ‘Measur*’ OR ‘Classif*’ OR ‘Quantif*’ OR ‘Monitor*’ OR ‘Estimat*’ |
S3 | ‘Muscle’ OR ‘Tendon’ OR ‘Tissue’ OR ‘Skin’ |
S4 | ‘Extens*’ OR ‘Elast*’ OR ‘Stiff*’ OR ‘Strain’ OR ‘Stretch’ OR ‘Laxity’ |
S5 | S1 AND S2 AND S3 AND S4 |
Critical appraisal and data extraction
Results
Study characteristics | Remvig et al. (2009) [14] | Rombaut et al. (2012) [16] | Nielsen et al. (2014) [21] | Alsiri et al. (2019) [15] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Study design | Cross-sectional | Cross-sectional | Cross-sectional | Cross-sectional |
Country | Denmark | Belgium | Denmark | Kuwait |
Relevant aims | ‘The aim of this study was to test … whether SC and STSM could differentiate between patients with either EDS or BJHS and healthy controls’. | ‘To investigate the passive properties of the plantar flexors muscle-tendon tissue in patients with the hypermobility type of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS-HT)’. | ‘… to investigate the structure and function of the patellar tendon in patients with cEDS … and to compare … with BJHS and healthy … We hypothesized decreased tendon stiffness’. | ‘The study explored the impact of HSD on musculoskeletal elasticity using SEL’. |
Tissues investigated | Skin of the volar and dorsal aspect of the forearm | Plantar flexor muscle-tendon tissue and Achilles tendon | Patellar tendon | Deltoid, biceps brachii, brachioradialis, rectus femoris and gastrocnemius muscles; patellar and Achilles tendons |
Tissue mechanics investigated | Skin extensibility and elasticity using the SC method. Skin ‘consistency’ using the STSM method | Tendon stiffness using a dynamometer in conjunction with ultrasonography. Passive resistive torque using an isokinetic dynamometer (measured at 10° dorsiflexion and at maximal dorsiflexion). Maximal passive dorsiflexion ROM | Tendon deformation, stiffness, strain and Young’s modulus using a strain gauge in conjunction with ultrasonography (measured at maximum isometric knee extension force). As the maximum force was different between groups, groups were also compared at a ‘common’ force | SEL strain index: lower boundary of strain index (subcutaneous fat), upper boundary of strain index (target tissue) and strain ratio (upper boundary/lower boundary). SEL colour pixel analysis: % of red (soft tissue), green (medium) and blue (hard) pixels within the target tissue elastogram |
Diagnostic criteria | Villefranche nosology and Brighton criteria | Villefranche nosology | Villefranche nosology and Brighton criteria | HSD framework (Castori et al. 2017) |
Sample size, n | 36 (6 EDS-HT, 11 BJHS, 19 control) | 50 (25 EDS-HT, 25 control) | 23 (7 cEDS, 8 BJHS, 8 control) | 43 (21 HSD, 22 control) |
Sex, n (% of total participants) | Unclear, but patients were matched for sex, age and physical activity. | Female = 50 (100%), male = 0 (0%) | Female = 18 (78%), male = 5 (22%) | Female = 35 (81%), male = 8 (19%) |
Age, years (mean ± SD or range) | All range = 18–42 | EDS-HT = 41 ± 10.0, controls = 41 ± 9.9 | cEDS range = 25–61, BJHS range = 31–53, control range = 23–70 | HSD = 35.57 ± 14.89, control = 34.72 ± 7.00 |
Ethnicity | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | 38 Asian, 4 Indian, 1 White British |
Patient recruitment | Clinical records (patients); hospital staff and students (controls) | Clinical records (patients); not reported (controls) | Clinical records (patients); not reported (controls) | Physiotherapy department referrals (patients); Ministry of Health staff and relatives (controls) |
Reliability | Intra-rater coefficient of variation for SC = 16.4% for stiffness index and 18.4% for recoil time. Intra- and inter-rater coefficient of variation for STSM = 7.23% and 9.25% | Test-retest reliability ICC = 0.80–0.82 (Mahieu et al. 2004) | Within- and between-day reliability r = 0.95 and 0.94 respectively for stiffness, 0.97 and 0.98 for strain and 0.94 and 0.86 for Young’s modulus (Hansen et al., 2006) | Intra-rater reliability ICC = 0.734 to 0.950 (Alsiri 2017) |
p value for differences between groups | Skin extensibility (SC) - Volar aspect (elbow extended) p = 0.031* between groups. Post hoc (Tukey) no differences between groups. - Volar aspect (elbow flexed) p = 0.106 between groups. Skin elasticity (SC) - Volar aspect (elbow extended) p = 0.091. - Volar aspect (elbow flexed) p = 0.065. Skin consistency (STSM) - Volar aspect (elbow extended) p < 0.05* between groups. Post hoc (Tukey) EDS-HT stiffness lower than control (p = 0.001*) and BJHS (p = 0.009*). No difference between BJHS and control. - Volar aspect (elbow flexed) p < 0.05* between groups. Post hoc (Tukey) EDS-HT stiffness lower than control (p = 0.01*). No difference between EDS-HT and BJHS or BJHS and control. - Dorsal aspect (elbow extended) p > 0.05. - Dorsal aspect (elbow flexed) p > 0.05 | Achilles tendon stiffness - Lower in EDS-HT than controls (p = 0.033*). Passive resistive torque - At 10° dorsiflexion ROM, p = 0.952. - At maximal dorsiflexion ROM, p = 0.977. Muscle cross-sectional area: p = 0.390 Maximal dorsiflexion ROM: greater in EDS-HT than controls (p < 0.001*) | Patellar tendon stiffness - Lower in cEDS compared to both BJHS and controls (at both maximum force and common force) (both p < 0.05*). No differences between BJHS and controls. Young’s modulus - Lower in cEDS compared to both BJHS and controls (at both maximum force and common force) (both p < 0.05*). No differences between BJHS and controls. Tendon deformation- No difference between groups (p > 0.05). Tendon strain - No difference between groups (p > 0.05) | Upper boundary of strain index between HSD and controls - Deltoid p = 0.24, biceps brachii p = 0.18, brachioradialis p = 0.01*, rectus femoris p = 0.38, patellar tendon p ≤ 0.001*, gastrocnemius p = 0.11, Achilles tendon p ≤ 0.001* Strain ratio between HSD and controls - Deltoid p = 0.45, biceps brachii p = 0.06, brachioradialis p ≤ 0.001*, rectus femoris p = 0.11, patellar tendon p ≤ 0.001*, gastrocnemius p = 0.81, Achilles tendon p = 0.34. Red pixel % (soft tissues) between HSD and controls - Deltoid p = 0.02, biceps brachii p ≤ 0.001*, brachioradialis p = 0.04, rectus femoris p = 0.02, patellar tendon p = 0.11, gastrocnemius p = 0.15, Achilles tendon p ≤ 0.001* Blue pixel % (hard tissues) between HSD and controls - Deltoid p = 0.0, biceps brachii p ≤ 0.001, brachioradialis p ≤ 0.001, rectus femoris p = 0.0, patellar tendon p = 0.20, gastrocnemius p = 0.17, Achilles tendon p ≤ 0.001* (note: conservative α ≤ 0.01 used for statistical significance] |
Summary | STSM differentiated between EDS-HT and BJHS/controls (volar aspect, elbow extended) and between EDS-HT and controls (volar aspect, elbow flexed). STSM did not differentiate between BJHS and controls. SC did not differentiate between EDS-HT, BJHS and controls. | Achilles tendon stiffness differentiated between EDS-HT and controls. Passive resistive torque did not distinguish between EDS-HT and controls. Maximal dorsiflexion ROM differentiated between EDS-HT and controls. | Patellar tendon stiffness differentiated between cEDS and BJHS/controls but not between BJHS and controls. Young’s modulus differentiated between cEDS and BJHS/controls but not between BJHS and controls. Tendon deformation did not differentiate between cEDS, BJHS and controls. Tendon strain did not differentiate between cEDS, BJHS and controls. | Strain ratio of brachioradialis and patellar tendon differentiated between HSD and controls. The proportion of red pixels (soft tissues) of the biceps brachii and Achilles tendon differentiated between HSD and controls. The proportion of blue pixels (hard tissues) of the biceps brachii, brachioradialis and Achilles tendon differentiated between HSD and controls. |
STROBE criteria | Remvig et al. [14] | Rombaut et al. [16] | Nielsen et al. [21] | Alsiri et al. [15] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Title and abstract | ||||
1 a). Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or abstract | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
b). Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Introduction | ||||
Background/rationale | ||||
2. Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Objectives | ||||
3. State-specific objectives, including any pre-specified hypotheses | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Methods | ||||
Study design | ||||
4. Present key elements of study design early in the paper | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Setting | ||||
5. Describe the setting, locations and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up and data collection | X | X | X | ✔ |
Participants | ||||
6. Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection participants | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Variables | ||||
7. Clearly define all the outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Data sources/ measurement | ||||
8*. For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement) Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Bias | ||||
9. Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias | ✔ | X | X | ✔ |
Study size | ||||
10. Explain how the study size was arrived at | X | X | X | ✔ |
Quantitative variables | ||||
11. Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analysis. If applicable describe which groupings were chosen and why | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Statistical methods | ||||
12 a). Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
b). Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
c). Explain how missing data were addressed | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
d). If applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
e). Describe any sensitivity analyses | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Results | ||||
Participants | ||||
13* a). Report numbers of individuals at each stage of the study | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
b). Give reasons for non-participation at each stage | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Descriptive data | ||||
14 a). Give characteristics of participants | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
b). Indicate number of participants with missing data | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Outcome data | ||||
15*. Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Main results | ||||
16 a). Give unadjusted data, adjusted data and reasons for adjustments | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
b). Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorised | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Other analyses | ||||
17. Report other analyses done e.g. subgroups and sensitivity analyses | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Discussion | ||||
Key results | ||||
18. Summarise key results with reference to study objectives | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Limitations | ||||
19. Discuss limitations of the study, including bias and imprecision. Discuss direction and magnitude of bias | ✔ | ✔ | X | ✔ |
Interpretation | ||||
20. Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies and other evidence | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Generalisability | ||||
21. Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Other information | ||||
Funding | ||||
22. Give the source of any funding and their role in this study or previous studies | ✔ | X | ✔ | ✔ |