ACD commonly is diagnosed postmortem, by a pathologist.

Sometimes ACD is diagnosed clinically. This is common when there is a family history of ACD, but rare otherwise. A clinical differential diagnosis of ACD excludes fetal atelectasis.

ACD is not detectable by prenatal imaging. However, some babies with ACD have associated congenital malformations that are detectable by imaging. The identification of genes involved in ACD offers the potential for prenatal testing and genetic counseling.

In terms of diagnosis for this condition, the following methods/tests are available:

- Endoscopic

- CT scan

- Serum endocrine autoantibody screen

- Histologic test

Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas has conducted ACD research since 2001.

Genetic testing may be available for mutations in the FGDY1 gene. Genetic counseling is indicated for individuals or families who may carry this condition, as there are overlapping features with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Other examinations or tests can help with diagnosis. These can include:

detailed family history

- conducting a detailed physical examination to document morphological features

- testing for genetic defect in FGDY1

- x-rays can identify skeletal abnormalities

- echo cardiogram can screen for heart abnormalities

- CT scan of the brain for cystic development

- X-ray of the teeth

- Ultrasound of abdomen to identify undescended testis

Carrier testing for Roberts syndrome requires prior identification of the disease-causing mutation in the family. Carriers for the disorder are heterozygotes due to the autosomal recessive nature of the disease. Carriers are also not at risk for contracting Roberts syndrome themselves. A prenatal diagnosis of Roberts syndrome requires an ultrasound examination paired with cytogenetic testing or prior identification of the disease-causing ESCO2 mutations in the family.

About 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated. In the United States, termination rates are around 67%, but this rate varied from 61% to 93% among different populations evaluated. When nonpregnant people are asked if they would have a termination if their fetus tested positive, 23–33% said yes, when high-risk pregnant women were asked, 46–86% said yes, and when women who screened positive are asked, 89–97% say yes.

In terms of diagnosing Bannayan–Riley–Ruvalcaba syndrome there is no current method outside the physical characteristics that may be present as signs/symptoms. There are, however, multiple molecular genetics tests (and cytogenetic test) to determine Bannayan–Riley–Ruvalcaba syndrome.

In general, children with a small isolated nevus and a normal physical exam do not need further testing; treatment may include potential surgical removal of the nevus. If syndrome issues are suspected, neurological, ocular, and skeletal exams are important. Laboratory investigations may include serum and urine calcium and phosphate, and possibly liver and renal function tests. The choice of imaging studies depends on the suspected abnormalities and might include skeletal survey, CT scan of the head, MRI, and/or EEG.

Depending on the systems involved, an individual with Schimmelpenning syndrome may need to see an interdisciplinary team of specialists: dermatologist, neurologist, ophthalmologist, orthopedic surgeon, oral surgeon, plastic surgeon, psychologist.

Diagnosis of Harlequin syndrome is made when the individual has consistent signs and symptoms of the condition, therefore, it is made by clinical observation. In addition, a neurologist or primary care physician may require an MRI test to rule out similar disorders such as Horner's syndrome, Adie's syndrome, and Ross' syndrome. In an MRI, a radiologist may observe areas near brain or spinal cord for lesions, or any damage to the nerve endings. It is also important that the clinician rules out traumatic causes by performing autonomic function tests. Such tests includes the following: tilt table test, orthostatic blood pressure measurement, head-up test, valsalva maneuver, thermoregulatory sweat test, tendon reflex test, and electrocardiography (ECG). CT scan of the heart and lungs may also be performed to rule out a structural underlying lesion. The medical history of the individual should be carefully noted.

Diagnosis depends on the clinical scenario. However, karyotyping is an essential test for diagnosis.

The diagnosis can often be suspected based on the child's physical appearance at birth. An analysis of the child's chromosomes is needed to confirm the diagnosis, and to determine if a translocation is present, as this may help determine the risk of the child's parents having further children with Down syndrome. Parents generally wish to know the possible diagnosis once it is suspected and do not wish pity.

Cytogenetic preparations that have been stained by either Giemsa or C-banding techniques will show two characteristic chromosomal abnormalities. The first chromosomal abnormality is called premature centromere separation (PCS) and is the most likely pathogenic mechanism for Roberts syndrome. Chromosomes that have PCS will have their centromeres separate during metaphase rather than anaphase (one phase earlier than normal chromosomes). The second chromosomal abnormality is called heterochromatin repulsion (HR). Chromosomes that have HR experience separation of the heterochromatic regions during metaphase. Chromosomes with these two abnormalities will display a "railroad track" appearance because of the absence of primary constriction and repulsion at the heterochromatic regions. The heterochromatic regions are the areas near the centromeres and nucleolar organizers. Carrier status cannot be determined by cytogenetic testing. Other common findings of cytogenetic testing on Roberts syndrome patients are listed below.

- Aneuploidy- the occurrence of one or more extra or missing chromosomes

- Micronucleation- nucleus is smaller than normal

- Multilobulated Nuclei- the nucleus has more than one lobe

Orofaciodigital syndrome type 1 is diagnosed through genetic testing. Some symptoms of Orofaciodigital syndrome type 1 are oral features such as, split tongue, benign tumors on the tongue, cleft palate, hypodontia and other dental abnormalities. Other symptoms of the face include hypertelorism and micrognathia. Bodily abnormalities such as webbed, short, joined, or abnormally curved fingers and toes are also symptoms of Orofaciodigital syndrome type 1. The most frequent symptoms are accessory oral frenulum, broad alveolar ridges, frontal bossing, high palate, hypertelorism, lobulated tongue, median cleft lip, and wide nasal bridge. Genetic screening of the OFD1 gene is used to officially diagnose a patient who has the syndrome, this is detected in 85% of individuals who are suspected to have Orofaciodigital syndrome type 1.

Autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome type 1 treatment is based on the symptoms that are presented by the affected individual, additionally there is:

- Hormone replacement

- Systemic antifungal treatment

- Immunosuppressive treatment

The diagnosis of this syndrome can be made on clinical examination and perinatal autopsy.

Koenig and Spranger (1986) noted that eye lesions are apparently nonobligatory components of the syndrome. The diagnosis of Fraser syndrome should be entertained in patients with a combination of acrofacial and urogenital malformations with or without cryptophthalmos. Thomas et al. (1986) also emphasized the occurrence of the cryptophthalmos syndrome without cryptophthalmos and proposed diagnostic criteria for Fraser syndrome. Major criteria consisted of cryptophthalmos, syndactyly, abnormal genitalia, and positive family history. Minor criteria were congenital malformation of the nose, ears, or larynx, cleft lip and/or palate, skeletal defects, umbilical hernia, renal agenesis, and mental retardation. Diagnosis was based on the presence of at least 2 major and 1 minor criteria, or 1 major and 4 minor criteria.

Boyd et al. (1988) suggested that prenatal diagnosis by ultrasound examination of eyes, digits, and kidneys should detect the severe form of the syndrome. Serville et al. (1989) demonstrated the feasibility of ultrasonographic diagnosis of the Fraser syndrome at 18 weeks' gestation. They suggested that the diagnosis could be made if 2 of the following signs are present: obstructive uropathy, microphthalmia, syndactyly, and oligohydramnios. Schauer et al. (1990) made the diagnosis at 18.5 weeks' gestation on the basis of sonography. Both the female fetus and the phenotypically normal father had a chromosome anomaly: inv(9)(p11q21). An earlier born infant had Fraser syndrome and the same chromosome 9 inversion.

Van Haelst et al. (2007) provided a revision of the diagnostic criteria for Fraser syndrome according to Thomas et al. (1986) through the addition of airway tract and urinary tract anomalies to the major criteria and removal of mental retardation and clefting as criteria. Major criteria included syndactyly, cryptophthalmos spectrum, urinary tract abnormalities, ambiguous genitalia, laryngeal and tracheal anomalies, and positive family history. Minor criteria included anorectal defects, dysplastic ears, skull ossification defects, umbilical abnormalities, and nasal anomalies. Cleft lip and/or palate, cardiac malformations, musculoskeletal anomalies, and mental retardation were considered uncommon. Van Haelst et al. (2007) suggested that the diagnosis of Fraser syndrome can be made if either 3 major criteria, or 2 major and 2 minor criteria, or 1 major and 3 minor criteria are present in a patient.

The diagnosis of Muenke syndrome is suspected bases on abnormal skull shape and a diagnosis of coronal craniosynostosis. In 2006, Agochukwu and her colleagues concluded that “A distinct Muenke syndrome phenotype includes: uni or bilateral coronal synostosis, midface hypoplasia, broad toes, and brachydactyly.” Due to phenotypic overlap and/or mild phenotypes, clinical differentiation of this syndrome may be difficult. The suspected diagnosis is confirmed by a blood test to check for gene mutation. To establish the extent of disease in an individual diagnosed with Muenke syndrome, various evaluations are recommended.

The diagnosis of Perlman syndrome is based on observed phenotypic features and confirmed by histological examination of the kidneys. Prenatal diagnosis is possible for families that have a genetic disposition for Perlman syndrome although there is no conclusive laboratory test to confirm the diagnosis. Fetal overgrowth, particularly with an occipitofrontal circumference (OFC) greater than the 90th centile for gestational age, as well as an excess of amniotic fluid in the amniotic sac (polyhydramnios), may be the first signs of Perlman. Using ultrasound diagnosis, Perlman syndrome has been detected at 18 weeks. During the first trimester, the common abnormalities of the syndrome observed by ultrasound include cystic hygroma and a thickened nuchal lucency. Common findings for the second and third trimesters include macrosomia, enlarged kidneys, renal tumors (both hamartoma and Wilms), cardiac abnormalities and visceromegaly.

Prompt recognition and identification of the disorder along with accurate follow-up and clinical assistance is recommended as the prognosis for Perlman is severe and associated with a high neonatal death rate.

In terms of treatment/management one should observe what signs or symptoms are present and therefore treat those as there is no other current guideline. The affected individual should be monitored for cancer of:

- Thyroid

- Breast

- Renal

Diagnosis is usually based on clinical findings, although fetal chromosome testing will show trisomy 13. While many of the physical findings are similar to Edwards syndrome there are a few unique traits, such as polydactyly. However, unlike Edwards syndrome and Down syndrome, the quad screen does not provide a reliable means of screening for this disorder. This is due to the variability of the results seen in fetuses with Patau.

Similar to all genetic diseases Aarskog–Scott syndrome cannot be cured, although numerous treatments exist to increase the quality of life.

Surgery may be required to correct some of the anomalies, and orthodontic treatment may be used to correct some of the facial abnormalities. Trials of growth hormone have been effective to treat short stature in this disorder.

Diagnosis can be made by EEG. In case of epileptic spasms, EEG shows typical patterns.

It is suggested that the diagnostic criteria for Malpuech syndrome should include cleft lip and/or palate, typical associated facial features, and at least two of the following: urogenital anomalies, caudal appendage, and growth or developmental delay.

Due to the relatively high rate of hearing impairment found with the disorder, it too may be considered in the diagnosis. Another congenital disorder, Wolf-Hirschhorn (Pitt-Rogers-Danks) syndrome, shares Malpuech features in its diagnostic criteria. Because of this lacking differentiation, karyotyping (microscopic analysis of the chromosomes of an individual) can be employed to distinguish the two. Whereas deletions in the short arm of chromosome 4 would be revealed with Wolf-Hirschhorn, a karyotype without this aberration present would favor a Malpuech syndrome diagnosis. Also, the karyotype of an individual with Malpuech syndrome alone will be normal.

Orofaciodigital syndrome type 1 can be treated with reconstructive surgery or the affected parts of the body. Surgery of cleft palate, tongue nodules, additional teeth, accessory frenulae, and orthodontia for malocclusion. Routine treatment for patients with renal disease and seizures may also be necessary. Speech therapy and special education in the later development may also be used as management.

In August 2016, researchers at the Instituto de Assistência dos Servidores do Estado do Rio de Janeiro used botulinum toxin as a method to block the acetylcholine release from the presynaptic neurons. Although they have seen a reduction in one sided flushing, sweating still occurs.

There have been case studies of individuals whom have experienced this syndrome after an operation. Two patients, a 37-year-old and 58-year-old female patients suffering from metastatic cancer were scheduled for placement of an intrathecal pump drug delivery system. After the intrathecal pump was placed, certain medications were given to the patients. Once the medications were administered, both patients had one sided facial flushes, closely resembling Harlequin Syndrome. Patients were given neurological exams to confirm that their nerves were still intact. An MRI was performed and showed no significant evidence of bleeding or nerve compression. After close observation for 16 hours, symptoms of the Harlequin syndrome was diminished and both patients did not have another episode.

Another case study was based on a 6-year-old male visiting an outpatient setting for one sided flushes during or after physical activity or exposed to heat. Vitals, laboratory tests, and CT scans were normal. Along with the flushes, the right pupil was 1.5 mm in size, while the left pupil was 2.5 mm in size; however, no ptosis, miosis, or enophthalmos was noted. The patient also had an MRI scan to rule out any lesion near the brain or spinal cord. No abnormalities were noted and the patient did not receive any treatments. The patient was diagnosed with idiopathic Harlequin syndrome.

Although the mechanism is still unclear, the pathophysiology of this condition, close monitoring, and reassurance are vital factors for successful management.

Screening generally only takes place among those displaying several of the symptoms of ABCD, but a study on a large group of institutionalized deaf people in Columbia revealed that 5.38% of them were Waardenburg patients. Because of its rarity, none of the patients were diagnosed with ABCD (Waardenburg Type IV). Nothing can be done to prevent the disease.