Published online October 2, 2006
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 4 October 2006, pp. 1532-1545 (doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0577)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Astley, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Astley, S. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Genetics & Dysmorphology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

ARTICLE

Comparison of the 4-Digit Diagnostic Code and the Hoyme Diagnostic Guidelines for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders

Susan J. Astley, PhD

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

OBJECTIVE. The 4-Digit Diagnostic Code for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and the Hoyme fetal alcohol spectrum disorders diagnostic guidelines differ markedly. The performances of the 2 diagnostic systems were compared.

METHODS. The fetal alcohol syndrome diagnostic criteria from the 4-Digit Code and Hoyme guidelines were applied to 952 patients who had received an interdisciplinary, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, diagnostic evaluation at the University of Washington with the 4-Digit Diagnostic Code and 16 children with confirmed absence of prenatal alcohol exposure.

RESULTS. The prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome was 3.7% with the 4-Digit Code and 4.1% with the Hoyme guidelines. Although the prevalences were similar, the patients identified were not. Only 17 individuals met the fetal alcohol syndrome criteria for both systems. An extraordinary number of patients (35%) met the Hoyme criteria for the fetal alcohol syndrome facial phenotype, but only 39 of those 330 patients met the Hoyme criteria for fetal alcohol syndrome. Even some children with no alcohol exposure (25%) had the Hoyme fetal alcohol syndrome face. The specificities of the Hoyme fetal alcohol syndrome face for the Hoyme fetal alcohol syndrome diagnosis and prenatal alcohol exposure were low in these populations.

CONCLUSIONS. Without a specific facial phenotype, a valid diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome cannot be rendered for patients with prenatal alcohol exposure, because a causal link between their outcomes and exposure cannot be established, and a valid diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome cannot be rendered for patients with unknown alcohol exposure, because the face cannot serve as a valid proxy measure for alcohol exposure. Diagnostic guidelines must confirm the specificity of their fetal alcohol syndrome facial criteria to validate their diagnostic criteria.

Key Words: diagnostic methods • fetal alcohol syndrome • fetal alcohol spectrum disorders • evaluation • guidelines

Abbreviations: FASD—fetal alcohol spectrum disorders • FAS—fetal alcohol syndrome • OFC—occipital frontal circumference • PFL—palpebral fissure length • IOM—Institute of Medicine • CDC—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • ARND—alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder • ARBD—alcohol-related birth defects • CNS—central nervous system • DPN—Diagnostic and Prevention Network • CI—confidence interval

Accepted May 26, 2006.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


eLetters:

Read all eLetters

RESPONSE TO CRITICISMS RAISED BY ASTLEY TO CLARIFICATIONS OF THE IOM DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR FASD
H. Eugene Hoyme, MD, FAAP, et al.
Pediatrics Online, 26 Feb 2007 [Full text]