Cited by 58Connective tissue disorders researchMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet; none of the 34 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Severity classes in adults with hypermobile Ehlers–Danlos syndrome/hypermobility spectrum disorders: a pilot study of 105 Italian patients

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study is aimed at identifying discrete severity classes among adults with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS)/hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD). METHODS: Subjects were selected according to the old and new nomenclatures and all completed a set of questionnaires exploring pain, fatigue, dysautonomic symptoms, coordination and attention/concentration deficits and quality of life in general. Data were investigated by hierarchical clustering on principal components. Cluster comparisons were then performed by using the two-sample unpaired t test and the standardized mean difference was reported as a measure of effect size. Conditional classification tree analysis and multivariable logistic regression were carried out in order to identify the profiles that were at higher risk to belong to the more severe cluster. Weighted linear combination was used to identify a numerical score measuring this risk. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were selected and distributed in two distinct severity groups. These groups were statistically separated on the basis of 47 of 59 items/characteristics. One group featured the worse values of most questionnaire items (complex/severe cluster) and the other was dominated by the better values (simplex/milder cluster). Only three items were able to stratify patients according to their risk to belong to the complex cluster. A severity score was then constructed on these three items. CONCLUSION: Adults with hEDS/HSD can be separated in two severity classes, which do not mirror either the old or new criteria for hEDS. The identified severity score could allow a bi-dimensional approach to adults with hEDS/HSD for optimal management planning.

Checked 2026-10-06 · 4 references not checked yet

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/rheumatology/kez029

Cites

27 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 25 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 16
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
39 of 39
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No similar study has been conducted in adults with hEDS/HSD, and existing data have not been explored to subclassify patients in clinical settings.

    “No similar study has been carried out in adults with hEDS/HSD and accumulated data have not yet been explored with the aim to subclassify patients in a clinical setting.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The 2017 hEDS criteria are useful for distinguishing patients with systemic connective tissue disease (structural anomalies) and/or families with Mendelian transmission within the spectrum.

    “In the present study, we assumed that the 2017 hEDS criteria are useful to distinguish patients with a systemic connective tissue disease (in terms of structural anomalies) and/or families with Mendelian transmission of the disease within the spectrum, but they are probably inadequate to separate patients by severity, and hence medical needs.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The 2017 hEDS criteria are probably inadequate for separating patients by severity and medical needs.

    “In the present study, we assumed that the 2017 hEDS criteria are useful to distinguish patients with a systemic connective tissue disease (in terms of structural anomalies) and/or families with Mendelian transmission of the disease within the spectrum, but they are probably inadequate to separate patients by severity, and hence medical needs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The hypermobility phase of JHS/hEDS is typically observed among children and adolescents.

    “In line with the concept that the hypermobility phase is typically observed among children and adolescents”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The investigated phenotype is rare.

    “considering the presumed rarity of the investigated phenotype”
5 of 5

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Brighton percentage does not match the cohort count

    Minor

    Of 105 patients, 36 is 34.3%, not the reported 27.6%.

    Reported 27.6 · recomputed 34.285714

  • Villefranche percentage does not match the cohort count

    Minor

    Of 105 patients, 69 is 65.7%, not the reported 72.4%.

    Reported 72.4 · recomputed 65.714286

  • The milder management category is given the severe cluster's name

    Minor

    The management discussion calls both the milder and severe categories "complex," although the results name the milder cluster "simplex."

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 32 references

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 58

Metadata

Authors
Copetti, M., Morlino, S., Colombi, M., Grammatico, P., Fontana, A., & Castori, M.
Affiliations
  • Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza (IT)
  • Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini (IT)
  • University of Brescia (IT)
Corresponding author
Castori, Marco
Venue
Rheumatology
Published
2019-02-19
Volume
58
Issue
10
Pages
1722-1730
ISSN
  • 1462-0324 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-0332
OpenAlex
W2916898328
Cited by
55
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lara D. Veeken (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministero della Salute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Connective tissue disorders research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Keywords
hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, hypermobility spectrum disorders, disease severity classification, severity scoring, pain, fatigue, coordination problems, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Italy, Joint Instability, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Syndrome, Linear Models, Arthralgia, Primary Dysautonomias

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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