Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparative studies

From: Dermatoglyphics in kidney diseases: a review

Author Study group Number of participant Gender Age (years) Ethnicity Country Disease/kidney anomalies Dermatoglyphic variables
Curró et al. (1982) Cases 30 unrelated patients Male = 13 6 month–12 years NR Italy Wilms tumor (histologically confirmed) Digital dermatoglyphics
  Qualitative
  In males, significantly decrease the incidence of whorl (P < 0.025) and radial loops (P < 0.05), significantly increase the Incidence of arches (P < 0.0005)
Quantitative
  Mean PII significantly lower (P < 0.02) in WT males; cases = 11 ± 3.78 (mean ± SD) and Control = 14.13 ± 3 (mean ± SD)
  TRC significantly lower in WT males, cases = 143.53 ± 88.72 (mean ± SD) and controls = 204.22 ± 69.29 (mean ± SD)
  TRC significantly lower in WT females, cases = 123.93 ± 66.57 (mean ± SD) and controls = 176.29 ± 67.68 (mean ± SD)
Palmar dermatoglyphic
 Maximal atd angle (sum of right and left atd angles); maximal atd angle of female WT patient were higher compared to control
(P < 0.01)
 Cummins index; significantly lower in both females (P < 0.001) and males (P < 0.001) compared to controls
Female = 17
Control 44 Male = 22 NR NR Italy  
Female = 22
Gutjahr et al. (1975) Cases 30 WT Out of all 60 cases 6 months–15 years (average of 5¾ years)
for All 60 cases) NR separately for cases
NR Germany 60 tumor patients (WT = 30, NB = 13, RS = 7, MT = 5, MB = 4 C = 1) In 30 Wilms tumor patient compared to control
Digital dermatoglyphics
 Qualitative
  WT: arch = 5.7 %, loop = 59.7 %, whorl = 34.7 %/, normal: arch = 7.9 %, loop = 63.1 %, whorl = 29.0 %)
 Quantitative
  Wilms tumor group TRC = 121.9 ± 37.4 compared to 136.4 ± 53.4
Palmar dermatoglyphics
 Qualitative
  III interdigital pattern 21.7 % in WT compared to 44 % in general population
  IV interdigital pattern 36.7 % in WT+ other tumors compared to 60 % expected value
 Quantitative
  a–b ridge count 63 % has <78
Plantar dermatoglyphics
 Qualitative
  Planter II interdigital patten 31.7 % in WT (both gender) compared to 28 % expected value
WT: A = 42.7 %, L = 46 %, W = 11.3 %/, normal: A = 19 %, L = 59.3 %, W = 21.7 %
Distally open loops common on great toe
M = 26
F = 34
NR separately for cases
Control 200 (based on Table 1 in the article) NR (in the article) NR NR NR  
Hauser et al. (1984) Cases 9 NRA NRA NRA NRA adult polycystic kidney disease (APCD) type III Intrafamilial comparison reviled that their ridge counts on fingers and palms were somewhat lower compared to healthy siblings
Control NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA
  1. NR not reported, NRA not reported in abstract, A arch, W whorl, L loop, TRC total finger ridge count, MLF main line formula, M male, F female, WT Wilms tumor, PII pattern intensity index, NB neuroblastoma, RS rhabdomyosarcoma, MT malignant teratoma, MB medulloblastoma, C chordoma