Table 3 Comparative studies
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 |
MÂ =Â 26 | ||||||||
FÂ =Â 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 |