Evaluation of mental retardation

Recommendations of a consensus conference

Cynthia J. Curry, Roger E. Stevenson, David Aughton, Janice Byrne, John C. Carey, Suzanne Cassidy, Christopher M Cunniff, John M. Graham, Marilyn C. Jones, Michael M. Kaback, John Moeschler, G. Bradley Schaefer, Stuart Schwartz, Jack Tarleton, John Opitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

330 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A Consensus Conference utilizing available literature and expert opinion sponsored by the American College of Medical Genetics in October 1995 evaluated the rational approach to the individual with mental retardation. Although no uniform protocol replaces individual clinician judgement, the consensus recommendations were as follows: 1. The individual with mental retardation, the family, and medical care providers benefit from a focused clinical and laboratory evaluation aimed at establishing causation and in providing counseling, prognosis, recurrence risks, and guidelines for management. 2. Essential elements of the evaluation include a three- generation pedigree: pre-, peri-, and post-natal history, complete physical examination focused on the presence of minor anomalies, neurologic examination, and assessment of the behavioral phenotype. 3. Selective laboratory testing should, in most patients, include a banded karyotype. Fragile X testing should be strongly considered in both males and females with unexplained mental retardation, especially in the presence of a positive family history, a consistent physical and behavioral phenotype and absence of major structural abnormalities. Metabolic testing should be initialed in the presence of suggestive clinical and physical findings. Neuroimaging should be considered in patients without a known diagnosis especially in the presence of neurologic symptoms, cranial contour abnormalities, microcephaly, or macrocephaly. In most situations MRI is the testing modality of choice. 4. Sequential evaluation of the patient, occasionally over several years, is often necessary for diagnosis, allowing for delineation of the physical and behavioral phenotype, a logical approach to ancillary testing and appropriate prognostic and reproductive counseling.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)468-477
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics
Volume72
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 12 1997

Fingerprint

Intellectual Disability
Consensus
Phenotype
Counseling
Megalencephaly
Microcephaly
Neurologic Examination
Risk Management
Expert Testimony
Pedigree
Neurologic Manifestations
Karyotype
Neuroimaging
Causality
Physical Examination
History
Guidelines
Recurrence

Keywords

  • Chromosome testing
  • Fragile X
  • Mental retardation
  • Metabolic testing
  • Neuroimaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

Evaluation of mental retardation : Recommendations of a consensus conference. / Curry, Cynthia J.; Stevenson, Roger E.; Aughton, David; Byrne, Janice; Carey, John C.; Cassidy, Suzanne; Cunniff, Christopher M; Graham, John M.; Jones, Marilyn C.; Kaback, Michael M.; Moeschler, John; Schaefer, G. Bradley; Schwartz, Stuart; Tarleton, Jack; Opitz, John.

In: American Journal of Medical Genetics, Vol. 72, No. 4, 12.11.1997, p. 468-477.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Curry, CJ, Stevenson, RE, Aughton, D, Byrne, J, Carey, JC, Cassidy, S, Cunniff, CM, Graham, JM, Jones, MC, Kaback, MM, Moeschler, J, Schaefer, GB, Schwartz, S, Tarleton, J & Opitz, J 1997, 'Evaluation of mental retardation: Recommendations of a consensus conference', American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 468-477. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19971112)72:4<468::AID-AJMG18>3.0.CO;2-P
Curry, Cynthia J. ; Stevenson, Roger E. ; Aughton, David ; Byrne, Janice ; Carey, John C. ; Cassidy, Suzanne ; Cunniff, Christopher M ; Graham, John M. ; Jones, Marilyn C. ; Kaback, Michael M. ; Moeschler, John ; Schaefer, G. Bradley ; Schwartz, Stuart ; Tarleton, Jack ; Opitz, John. / Evaluation of mental retardation : Recommendations of a consensus conference. In: American Journal of Medical Genetics. 1997 ; Vol. 72, No. 4. pp. 468-477.
@article{f93f8421741346a9a8542fd641d8a190,
title = "Evaluation of mental retardation: Recommendations of a consensus conference",
abstract = "A Consensus Conference utilizing available literature and expert opinion sponsored by the American College of Medical Genetics in October 1995 evaluated the rational approach to the individual with mental retardation. Although no uniform protocol replaces individual clinician judgement, the consensus recommendations were as follows: 1. The individual with mental retardation, the family, and medical care providers benefit from a focused clinical and laboratory evaluation aimed at establishing causation and in providing counseling, prognosis, recurrence risks, and guidelines for management. 2. Essential elements of the evaluation include a three- generation pedigree: pre-, peri-, and post-natal history, complete physical examination focused on the presence of minor anomalies, neurologic examination, and assessment of the behavioral phenotype. 3. Selective laboratory testing should, in most patients, include a banded karyotype. Fragile X testing should be strongly considered in both males and females with unexplained mental retardation, especially in the presence of a positive family history, a consistent physical and behavioral phenotype and absence of major structural abnormalities. Metabolic testing should be initialed in the presence of suggestive clinical and physical findings. Neuroimaging should be considered in patients without a known diagnosis especially in the presence of neurologic symptoms, cranial contour abnormalities, microcephaly, or macrocephaly. In most situations MRI is the testing modality of choice. 4. Sequential evaluation of the patient, occasionally over several years, is often necessary for diagnosis, allowing for delineation of the physical and behavioral phenotype, a logical approach to ancillary testing and appropriate prognostic and reproductive counseling.",
keywords = "Chromosome testing, Fragile X, Mental retardation, Metabolic testing, Neuroimaging",
author = "Curry, {Cynthia J.} and Stevenson, {Roger E.} and David Aughton and Janice Byrne and Carey, {John C.} and Suzanne Cassidy and Cunniff, {Christopher M} and Graham, {John M.} and Jones, {Marilyn C.} and Kaback, {Michael M.} and John Moeschler and Schaefer, {G. Bradley} and Stuart Schwartz and Jack Tarleton and John Opitz",
year = "1997",
month = "11",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19971112)72:4<468::AID-AJMG18>3.0.CO;2-P",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "72",
pages = "468--477",
journal = "American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A",
issn = "1552-4825",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of mental retardation

T2 - Recommendations of a consensus conference

AU - Curry, Cynthia J.

AU - Stevenson, Roger E.

AU - Aughton, David

AU - Byrne, Janice

AU - Carey, John C.

AU - Cassidy, Suzanne

AU - Cunniff, Christopher M

AU - Graham, John M.

AU - Jones, Marilyn C.

AU - Kaback, Michael M.

AU - Moeschler, John

AU - Schaefer, G. Bradley

AU - Schwartz, Stuart

AU - Tarleton, Jack

AU - Opitz, John

PY - 1997/11/12

Y1 - 1997/11/12

N2 - A Consensus Conference utilizing available literature and expert opinion sponsored by the American College of Medical Genetics in October 1995 evaluated the rational approach to the individual with mental retardation. Although no uniform protocol replaces individual clinician judgement, the consensus recommendations were as follows: 1. The individual with mental retardation, the family, and medical care providers benefit from a focused clinical and laboratory evaluation aimed at establishing causation and in providing counseling, prognosis, recurrence risks, and guidelines for management. 2. Essential elements of the evaluation include a three- generation pedigree: pre-, peri-, and post-natal history, complete physical examination focused on the presence of minor anomalies, neurologic examination, and assessment of the behavioral phenotype. 3. Selective laboratory testing should, in most patients, include a banded karyotype. Fragile X testing should be strongly considered in both males and females with unexplained mental retardation, especially in the presence of a positive family history, a consistent physical and behavioral phenotype and absence of major structural abnormalities. Metabolic testing should be initialed in the presence of suggestive clinical and physical findings. Neuroimaging should be considered in patients without a known diagnosis especially in the presence of neurologic symptoms, cranial contour abnormalities, microcephaly, or macrocephaly. In most situations MRI is the testing modality of choice. 4. Sequential evaluation of the patient, occasionally over several years, is often necessary for diagnosis, allowing for delineation of the physical and behavioral phenotype, a logical approach to ancillary testing and appropriate prognostic and reproductive counseling.

AB - A Consensus Conference utilizing available literature and expert opinion sponsored by the American College of Medical Genetics in October 1995 evaluated the rational approach to the individual with mental retardation. Although no uniform protocol replaces individual clinician judgement, the consensus recommendations were as follows: 1. The individual with mental retardation, the family, and medical care providers benefit from a focused clinical and laboratory evaluation aimed at establishing causation and in providing counseling, prognosis, recurrence risks, and guidelines for management. 2. Essential elements of the evaluation include a three- generation pedigree: pre-, peri-, and post-natal history, complete physical examination focused on the presence of minor anomalies, neurologic examination, and assessment of the behavioral phenotype. 3. Selective laboratory testing should, in most patients, include a banded karyotype. Fragile X testing should be strongly considered in both males and females with unexplained mental retardation, especially in the presence of a positive family history, a consistent physical and behavioral phenotype and absence of major structural abnormalities. Metabolic testing should be initialed in the presence of suggestive clinical and physical findings. Neuroimaging should be considered in patients without a known diagnosis especially in the presence of neurologic symptoms, cranial contour abnormalities, microcephaly, or macrocephaly. In most situations MRI is the testing modality of choice. 4. Sequential evaluation of the patient, occasionally over several years, is often necessary for diagnosis, allowing for delineation of the physical and behavioral phenotype, a logical approach to ancillary testing and appropriate prognostic and reproductive counseling.

KW - Chromosome testing

KW - Fragile X

KW - Mental retardation

KW - Metabolic testing

KW - Neuroimaging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030862260&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030862260&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19971112)72:4<468::AID-AJMG18>3.0.CO;2-P

DO - 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19971112)72:4<468::AID-AJMG18>3.0.CO;2-P

M3 - Article

VL - 72

SP - 468

EP - 477

JO - American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A

JF - American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A

SN - 1552-4825

IS - 4

ER -