Daan P F van Nunen1, Marie-José H van den Boogaard2, Corstiaan C Breugem1. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2. Department of Medical Genetics, Cleft Center Utrecht, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Heterogeneity in both nomenclature and diagnostic criteria has hindered the interpretation of research into the congenital condition most widely known as (Pierre) Robin syndrome or sequence. In 2009, the discussion regarding its diagnosis and nosology was reopened to converge on a uniform eponym and standard set of diagnostic criteria. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of this debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of the nomenclature and diagnostic criteria employed in studies about this condition that were indexed in the MEDLINE literature database (PubMed) and published during 2009 to 2016. RESULTS: A total of 440 studies were retrieved of which the majority used the eponyms "Pierre Robin sequence" (62.0%) or "Robin sequence" (23.4%). During the study period, there was a significant shift toward the use of "sequence" in preference over "syndrome." Only 71.4% of studies mentioned their criteria for diagnosis, which remained heterogeneous throughout the study period. CONCLUSION: Since 2009, the debate has not produced a consensus eponym and standard diagnosis. This is unfortunate given the enduring controversies over the optimal management of a condition associated with a high morbidity and mortality. A renewed effort is needed to arrive at a workable consensus to enhance the retrievability of relevant literature and facilitate the interpretation of outcome studies.
OBJECTIVE: Heterogeneity in both nomenclature and diagnostic criteria has hindered the interpretation of research into the congenital condition most widely known as (Pierre) Robin syndrome or sequence. In 2009, the discussion regarding its diagnosis and nosology was reopened to converge on a uniform eponym and standard set of diagnostic criteria. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of this debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of the nomenclature and diagnostic criteria employed in studies about this condition that were indexed in the MEDLINE literature database (PubMed) and published during 2009 to 2016. RESULTS: A total of 440 studies were retrieved of which the majority used the eponyms "Pierre Robin sequence" (62.0%) or "Robin sequence" (23.4%). During the study period, there was a significant shift toward the use of "sequence" in preference over "syndrome." Only 71.4% of studies mentioned their criteria for diagnosis, which remained heterogeneous throughout the study period. CONCLUSION: Since 2009, the debate has not produced a consensus eponym and standard diagnosis. This is unfortunate given the enduring controversies over the optimal management of a condition associated with a high morbidity and mortality. A renewed effort is needed to arrive at a workable consensus to enhance the retrievability of relevant literature and facilitate the interpretation of outcome studies.