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

TL;DR

This study explores whether a subset of joint mobility tests can define generalized joint hypermobility, finding that a broader assessment is likely needed.

Contribution

The study demonstrates that no single subset of joint mobility tests can reliably define generalized joint hypermobility.

Findings

No subset of joint mobility tests could define generalized joint hypermobility.

Higher standard deviation levels led to higher limits for classifying hypermobility and lower prevalence.

Different combinations of joint tests resulted in a prevalence range of 0% to 12.9% for generalized joint hypermobility.

Abstract

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Figures