MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411465070 · doi:10.1186/s13023-025-03854-6

Prevalence of vascular complications in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4411465070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdelaziz A. Awad, Ambana Yappalparvi, Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, R. Roopashree, Mandeep Kaur, Manish Srivastava, Amit Barwal, G. V. Siva Prasad, Pranchal Rajput, Gajendra Sharma, Anand Prasoon, Muhammed Shabil, Ankit Punia, Megha Jagga, Rachana Mehta, Sanjit Sah, Prakasini Satapathy, Abhay Gaidhane, Edward Mawejje, Ganesh Bushi

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAl-Azhar University
KeywordsEhlers–Danlos syndromeMedicineMeta-analysisObservational studyStudy heterogeneityComplicationPublication biasSystematic reviewInternal medicineData extractionMEDLINESurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) comprises connective tissue disorders associated with increased vascular complication risks. This meta-analysis assesses the prevalence of vascular complications in among patients with EDS. METHODS: The review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until November 2024. Observational studies reporting vascular complications in EDS were included. Data extraction included demographics, complication types, and study design, and quality assessment was evaluated using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Random-effects models and I² statistics assessed heterogeneity, while Doi plots evaluated publication bias. RESULTS: Of the 1,772 articles screened, 12 met the inclusion criteria, reporting various vascular complications in EDS. The overall pooled prevalence of vascular complications was 30.03% (95% CI: 15.00-51.07%). The prevalence for the vEDS subtype was 42.36% (95% CI: 12.63-78.88%), for unspecified EDS was 18.65% (95% CI: 5.38-48.03%), and for hEDS was 19.77% (95% CI: 15.09-25.16%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of the pooled prevalence estimates, and DOI plots indicated minimal publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the high risk of vascular complications in vEDS, with moderate involvement in other EDS subtypes. Regular vascular monitoring, especially in vEDS, is crucial for early detection and intervention. Standardized diagnostic protocols and further research into genetic factors are needed to improve management strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207