title: Williams Syndrome: development of a new scoring system for clinical diagnosis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To develop a scoring system based on clinical findings to assist pediatricians in the diagnosis of William syndrome and to delineate when the fluorescent in-situ hybridization test to detect the microdeletion at 7q11.23 may be needed.
  
  
  METHODS
  The fluorescent in-situ hybridization test was performed on 20 patients presenting William syndrome suggestive clinical features. Eleven studies were selected from the literature in which there were 2 groups: patients with positive or negative fluorescent in-situ hybridization tests. Forty-two clinical characteristics were compared to those reported in the literature to determine which ones were associated with the affected patients (ie, bearing deletions) using meta-analysis. The 2-tailed Fisher exact test were used so that the frequency of findings observed in fluorescent in-situ hybridization positive and fluorescent in-situ hybridization negative patients could be compared in the present study together with the patients from the literature. We developed a scoring system based on clinical findings and their significant associations with patients with positive fluorescent in-situ hybridization tests. From the mean and standard-deviation values of the data from our patients, we determined the cut-off score that that indicated the need for a fluorescent in-situ hybridization test to confirm diagnosis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seventeen patients were fluorescent in-situ hybridization positive, and 3 were fluorescent in-situ hybridization negative. The more discriminative findings among fluorescent in-situ hybridization positive patients were the following: typical facies, low birth weight, feeding difficulties, constipation, supravalvar aortic stenosis, mental retardation, and friendly personality. The distribution of the points among the 20 patients ranged from 19 to 28 points with a mean value of 23.3 out of a possible total of 31 points. The cut-off score that indicated the need for a fluorescent in-situ hybridization test was 20.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our scoring system enables physicians to differentiate between those individuals who can be reliably diagnosed as having Williams syndrome solely from the clinical findings and those who need to undergo fluorescent in-situ hybridization testing for a correct diagnosis.
authors.affiliation: Child's Institute, Medical School, São Paulo University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
authors.forename: Sofia Mizuho Miura
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Sugayama
authors.forename: Cláudio
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Leone
authors.forename: Maria de Lourdes Lopes Ferrari
authors.initials: Mde L
authors.lastname: Chauffaille
authors.forename: Thelma Suely
authors.initials: TS
authors.lastname: Okay
authors.forename: Chong Ae
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Kim
mesh_terms: D002897:Chromosomes, Human, Pair 7 / Q000235:genetics*; D004547:Elastic Tissue; D004549:Elastin / Q000235:genetics*; D005260:Female; D017353:Gene Deletion; D006801:Humans; D017404:In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence / Q000379:methods*; D007621:Karyotyping; D008297:Male; D010641:Phenotype; D018980:Williams Syndrome / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000235:genetics*
chemical_list: D004549:Elastin