"Could a subset of joint mobility tests define generalized joint hypermobility?": A descriptive observational inception study.

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. OBJECTIVES: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Generalized joint hypermobility and the risk of pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain: Is body mass index of importance?-A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) affects approximately 50% of pregnant women. The mechanisms are multifactorial but not fully understood. Women with generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) may be vulnerable to load in the pelvic joints during pregnancy. Our aim was to investigate if women with GJH had an increased risk of PGP and higher pain intensity during and after pregnancy, compared with women with normal joint mobility. We also studied if body mass index (BMI) in early pregnancy influenced that risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 356 women, whose data were collected by self-reports and clinical examinations in early and in late pregnancy and 9 months after childbirth. GJH was present with ≥5/9 points on the Beighton score. PGP was defined by a pain drawing and ≥1 positive test. Pain intensity was measured with a visual analogue scale (0-100 mm). We adjusted for age and origin in logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In early pregnancy, 47.1% of the women with GJH had PGP vs 32.6% of women with normal joint mobility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-3.62) and had higher odds of reporting higher pain intensity (aOR 2.04; 95% CI 1.02-4.07). The odds of PGP were highest for women with GJH and BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (aOR 6.88; 95% CI 1.34-35.27) compared with women with normal joint mobility and BMI <25 kg/m2 . The estimated associations were weaker and not statistically significant in late pregnancy or after childbirth. CONCLUSIONS: Women with GJH did not have an increased risk of PGP during or after pregnancy but reported higher pain intensity in early pregnancy compared with women with normal joint mobility. Since women with combined GJH and BMI ≥25 kg/m2 had the highest odds of PGP in early pregnancy, our results may suggest that health care needs to pay attention to and develop methods to reduce the risk of PGP and delay the onset of pain during pregnancy in women with this combination.

Role of depressive symptoms on the development of pelvic girdle pain in pregnancy: A prospective inception cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic girdle pain in pregnancy is a major public health concern. For too many women, the pain condition causes disability and sick leave, has a negative impact on daily life, and breeds doubt in their view as mother, partner, and worker. The pathophysiology is unknown and causal treatment is lacking. Depression in pregnancy is common, undertreated, and previously associated with pelvic girdle pain with unclear causal direction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective inception cohort study of 356 Swedish women examined them in early and late pregnancy. Women with a positive Posterior Pelvic Pain Provocation test in early pregnancy were not included. The exposure, depressive symptoms in early pregnancy, was self-reported on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, depression part (0-21). Outcome measure in late pregnancy was a graded score on the Posterior Pelvic Pain Provocation test (0-8). Covariates for statistical adjustment were identified in a directed acyclic graph. Linear robust and logistic regression were used in the statistical analyses. RESULTS: In early pregnancy, the 248 women with negative Posterior Pelvic Pain Provocation test had a mean score of 2.35 (± 2.3 standard deviation) on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, depression part. In a fully adjusted, multiple robust regression model a positive association was shown between Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, depression part, and the Posterior Pelvic Pain Provocation test score in late pregnancy with an estimated effect of ß = 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-0.48, p < 0.001). Dichotomization of exposure (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, depression part <8/≥8) and outcome (Posterior Pelvic Pain Provocation test score 0/>0) rendered adjusted odds ratio 1.71 (95% CI 0.38-7.7) and numbers needed to treat adjusted odds ratio 5.54 (95% CI -3.4-14.5). CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms in early pregnancy were associated with the development and intensity of pelvic girdle pain in late pregnancy. Considering the small sample size, screening and treatment for depressive symptoms in early pregnancy may enable a way to reduce and prevent disabling pelvic girdle pain in late pregnancy. Trials are needed to confirm the results.

Validity of the self-reported five-part questionnaire as an assessment of generalized joint hypermobility in early pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of generalized joint hypermobility is difficult due to differences in classification methods and in the performance of joint mobility assessment. The primary aim was to evaluate the validity of the self-reported five-part questionnaire, 5PQ, for identifying generalized joint hypermobility using the Beighton score as reference test. The secondary aim was to describe how joint angles measured in degrees included in the Beighton score varied in different cut-off levels in the self-reported 5PQ and the Beighton score. METHODS: A cross-sectional validity study with a total of 301 women in early pregnancy, mean age of 31 years, were included in the study. The participants answered the self-reported 5PQ before the joint angles were measured. To standardize the joint mobility measurement, a structural protocol was used. The sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curve, area under curve, positive- and negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio and Spearman's rank correlation between the self-reported 5PQ ≥ 2 and the Beighton score ≥ 5 were used as main outcome measures in the validity analyses. Joint angles, measured in degrees, were calculated with means in relation to different cut-off levels. RESULTS: There was moderate correlation between the self-reported 5PQ and the Beighton score. The highest combined sensitivity, 84.1%, as well as specificity, 61.9%, was on 5PQ cut-off level ≥ 2, with a 38% false-positive rate, a moderate area under curve, a low positive predictive value and likelihood ratio, and a high negative predictive value. The odds of a self-reported 5PQ, cut-off level ≥ 2, among women with generalized joint hypermobility, Beighton ≥5, was low indicating a low post-test probability. The mean for all joint angles measured in degrees increased with increased cut-off levels, both in the Beighton score and in the self-reported 5PQ. However, there was a significant variation for each cut-off level. CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty in identifying generalized joint hypermobility in young women using the self-reported 5PQ with a cut-off level of ≥2 when the Beighton score ≥ 5 is used as the reference test. The strength of the self-reported 5PQ is to rule-out women without generalized joint hypermobility.

The Association of Self-Reported Generalized Joint Hypermobility with pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) is common during pregnancy but the causes remain poorly understood. Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is an inherited trait, with joint mobility beyond normal limits and is assumed to be related with PGP. The aim of this project was to study the association between self-reported GJH and the presence of PGP during pregnancy. METHODS: In this cohort study, 4884 Swedish-speaking women were consecutively recruited at their first visit for registration in the national antenatal screening programme in Sweden. We used the five-part questionnaire (5PQ) to assess GJH and pain drawings to identify PGP. Our primary outcome was the presence of PGP during the entire pregnancy and secondary outcomes were PGP in each trimesters. We tested the associations with logistic regression analysis, and adjusted for age and ethnicity. RESULTS: In all, 2455 (50.3%) women responded to both questionnaires. The prevalence of self-reported GJH was 28.7%. A higher proportion of women with GJH than women without GJH reported PGP during the entire pregnancy (47.9% vs. 41.0%), particularly in trimester 1 (31.6% vs. 22.0%). Thus, women with GJH also had higher odds of PGP during the entire pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.27: 95% CI 1.11-1.47) and in trimester 1 (aOR 1.54: 95% CI 1.20-1.96), but the associations were not statistically significant in trimester 2 (aOR 1.24: 95% CI 0.82-1.88) or trimester 3 (aOR 1.20: 95% CI 0.99-1.45). The odds of PGP in pregnancy increased with increasing numbers of positive answers to the 5PQ (p for linear trend < 0.001) for the entire pregnancy and in trimester 1 (p for linear trend < 0.001), but not in trimesters 2 or 3 (p = 0.13 and p = 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to women with normal joint mobility, women with GJH had higher odds of reporting PGP during pregnancy and the odds increased with number of positive responses to the 5PQ. The associations were present in trimester 1 but did not reach statistical significance in trimester 2 and 3.

Inter- and intra-rater reliability for measurement of range of motion in joints included in three hypermobility assessment methods.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons across studies of generalized joint hypermobility are often difficult since there are several classification methods and methodological differences in the performance exist. The Beighton score is most commonly used and has been tested for inter- and intra-rater reliability. The Contompasis score and the Hospital del Mar criteria have not yet been evaluated for reliability. The aim of this study was to investigate the inter- and intra-rater reliability for measurements of range of motion in joints included in these three hypermobility assessment methods using a structured protocol. METHODS: The study was planned in accordance with guidelines for reporting reliability studies. Healthy adults were consecutively recruited (49 for inter- and 29 for intra-rater assessments). Intra-class correlations, two-way random effects model, (ICC 2.1) with 95% confidence intervals, standard error of measurement, percentage of agreement, Cohen's Kappa (κ) and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa were calculated for single-joint measured in degrees and for total scores. RESULTS: The inter- and intra-rater reliability in total scores were ICC 2.1: 0.72-0.82 and 0.76-0.86 and for single-joint measurements in degrees 0.44-0.91 and 0.44-0.90, respectively. The difference between ratings was within 5 degrees in all but one joint. Standard error of measurement ranged from 1.0 to 6.9 degrees. The inter- and intra-rater reliability for prevalence of positive hypermobility findings the Cohen's κ for total scores were 0.54-0.78 and 0.27-0.78 and in single joints 0.21-1.00 and 0.19-1.00, respectively. The prevalence- and bias adjusted Cohen's κ, increased all but two values. CONCLUSIONS: Following a structured protocol, the inter- and intra-rater reliability was good-to-excellent for total scores and in all but two single joints, measured in degrees. The inter- and intra-rater reliability for prevalence of positive hypermobility findings was fair-to-almost perfect for total scores and slight-to-almost-perfect in single joints. By using a structured protocol, we attempted to standardize the assessment of range of motion in clinical and in research settings. This standardization could be helpful in the first part of the process of standardizing the tests thus avoiding that assessment of GJH is based on chance.