Predictors of pain and mobility disability in the hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Abstract
Aim: Among the Ehlers-Danlos syndromes, the hypermobile subtype (hEDS) is the most common. The variety, accumulation and duration of the painful symptoms make hEDS a chronic and highly disabling condition. Identifying drivers of pain and mobility disability in hEDS is necessary to provide adapted prevention and intervention programs. Methods: A cross-sectional sample of 75 adults with hEDS according to Villefranche criteria (67 women; 36 years, SD = 11.2) responded to self-assessment questionnaires regarding psychological (negative thoughts and emotions), health (pain, fatigue, diagnostic delay, body mass index, and mobility disability) and socio-demographic variables. Results: Forty-three percent of the participants suffer from severe pain, and two thirds suffer from a high level of mobility disability. Multivariate analyses show that delay of diagnosis, being professionally active and thoughts of helplessness are variables that increase the likelihood of severe pain, whereas age, fatigue, and body mass index predict mobility disability. Conclusion: These results confirm previous research concerning the high disease burden observed in hEDS patients, and highlight the importance of multidisciplinary management that includes nutritional and psychological advice to address this pathology. Increasing awareness of the clinical aspects of hEDS among physicians is necessary to reduce diagnostic delay and minimize negatives outcomes.Implications for RehabilitationA high proportion o…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research adopting a biopsychosocial approach is emerging, although it is still limited in this population.
“Research adopting a biopsychosocial approach is emerging, although it is still limited in this population.75,76”
From Role of Anxiety in Individuals with Generalized Joint Hypermobility: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [76]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Kalisch, L., Hamonet, C., Bourdon, C., Montalescot, L., de Cazotte, C., & Baeza-Velasco, C.
- Affiliations
- Anglia Ruskin University (GB)
- Université Paris-Est Créteil (FR)
- Functional Rehabilitation Center, Evry Hospital, Evry, France;
- Université Paris Cité (FR)
- Laboratory of Psychopathology and Health Processes (EA 4057), University Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Boulogne-Billancourt, France;
- Venue
- Disability and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-05-07
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 25
- Pages
- 3679-3686
- ISSN
- 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5165
- OpenAlex
- W2944101281
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 2.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Connective tissue disorders research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
- Keywords
- hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, chronic pain, mobility impairment, delayed diagnosis, helplessness, fatigue, body mass index, psychosocial factors, disease burden, multidisciplinary management
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Female, Humans, Joint Instability, Pain, Delayed Diagnosis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
