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.

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.

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

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

The occurrence of WS has been reported to be one in 45,000 in Europe. The diagnosis can be made prenatally by ultrasound due to the phenotype displaying pigmentary disturbances, facial abnormalities, and other developmental defects. After birth, the diagnosis is initially made symptomatically and can be confirmed through genetic testing. If the diagnosis is not made early enough, complications can arise from

Hirschsprung's disease.

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.

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.

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.

Diagnosis is made based on features as well as by the very early onset of serious eye and ear disease. Because Marshall syndrome is an autosomal dominant hereditary disease, physicians can also note the characteristic appearance of the biological parent of the child. There are no tests for Stickler syndrome or Marshall syndrome. Some families with Stickler syndrome have been shown to have mutations in the Type II collagen gene on chromosome 1. However, other families do not show the linkage to the collagen gene. It is an area of active research, also the genetic testing being expensive supports that the diagnosis is made depending on the features.

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.

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.

Many professionals that are likely to be involved in the treatment of those with Stickler's syndrome, include anesthesiologists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons; craniofacial surgeons; ear, nose, and throat specialists, ophthalmologists, optometrists, audiologists, speech pathologists, physical therapists and rheumatologists.

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.

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.

Ultrasound remains as one of the only effective ways of prenatally diagnosing Larsen syndrome. Prenatal diagnosis is extremely important, as it can help families prepare for the arrival of an infant with several defects. Ultrasound can capture prenatal images of multiple joint dislocations, abnormal positioning of legs and knees, depressed nasal bridge, prominent forehead, and club feet. These symptoms are all associated with Larsen syndrome, so they can be used to confirm that a fetus has the disorder.

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.

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

Some people may have some mental slowness, but children with this condition often have good social skills. Some males may have problems with fertility.

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

- Endoscopic

- CT scan

- Serum endocrine autoantibody screen

- Histologic test

Marshall–Smith syndrome is not to be confused with:

- Marshall syndrome (aka.Periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis and adenitis (PFAPA syndrome, see also: Periodic fever syndrome)

- Sotos (like) syndrome

- Weaver-Smith syndrome (WSS)

There is no medical treatment for either syndrome but there are some recommendations that can help with prevention or early identification of some of the problems. Children with either syndrome should have their hearing tested, and adults should be aware that the hearing loss may not develop until the adult years. Yearly visits to an ophthalmologist or other eye care professional who has been informed of the diagnosis of Stickler or Marshall syndrome is important for all affected individuals. Children should have the opportunity to have myopia corrected as early as possible, and treatment for cataracts or detached retinas may be more effective with early identification. Support for the joints is especially important during sports, and some recommend that contact sports should be avoided by those who have very loose joints.

After the first discovery and description of Marshall–Smith syndrome in 1971, research to this rare syndrome has been carried out.

- Adam, M., Hennekam, R.C.M., Butler, M.G., Raf, M., Keppen, L., Bull, M., Clericuzio, C., Burke, L., Guttacher, A., Ormond, K., & Hoyme, H.E. (2002). Marshall–Smith syndrome: An osteochondrodysplasia with connective tissue abnormalities. 23rd Annual David W. Smith Workshop on Malformations and Morphogenesis, August 7, Clemson, SC.

- Adam MP, Hennekam RC, Keppen LD, Bull MJ, Clericuzio CL, Burke LW, Guttmacher AE, Ormond KE and Hoyme HE: Marshall-Smith Syndrome: Natural history and evidence of an osteochondrodysplasia with connective tissue abnormalities. American Journal of Medical Genetics 137A:117–124, 2005.

- Baldellou Vazquez A, Ruiz-Echarri Zelaya MP, Loris Pablo C, Ferr#{225}ndez Longas A, Tamparillas Salvador M. El sIndrome de Marshall-Smith: a prop#{243}sito de una observad#{243}n personal. An Esp Pediatr 1983; 18:45-50.

- Butler, M.G. (2003). Marshall–Smith syndrome. In: The NORD Guide to Rare Disorders. (pp219–220) Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.

- Charon A, Gillerot T, Van Maldergem L, Van Schaftingen MH, de Bont B, Koulischer L. The Marshall–Smith syndrome. Eur J Pediatr 1990; 150: 54-5.

- Dernedde, G., Pendeville, P., Veyckemans, F., Verellen, G. & Gillerot, Y. (1998). Anaesthetic management of a child with Marshall–Smith syndrome. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 45 (7): 660. Anaesthetic management of a child with Marshall-Smith syndrome

- Diab, M., Raff, M., Gunther, D.F. (2002). Osseous fragility in Marshall–Smith syndrome. Clinical Report: Osseous fragility in Marshall-Smith syndrome

- Ehresmann, T., Gillessen-Kaesbach G., Koenig R. (2005). Late diagnosis of Marshall Smith Syndrome (MSS). In: Medgen 17.

- Hassan M, Sutton T, Mage K, LimalJM, Rappaport R. The syndrome of accelerated bone maturation in the newborn infant with dysmorphism and congenital malformations: (the so-called Marshall–Smith syndrome). Pediatr Radiol 1976; 5:53-57.

- Hoyme HE and Bull MJ: The Marshall-Smith Syndrome: Natural history beyond infancy. Western Society for Pediatric Research, Carmel, California, February, 1987. Clin Res 35:68A, 1987.

- Hoyme HE and Bull MJ: The Marshall-Smith Syndrome: Natural history beyond infancy. David W. Smith Morphogenesis and Malformations Workshop. Greenville, SC, August, 1987. Proceedings of the Greenwood Genetics Center 7:152, 1988.

- Hoyme HE, Byers PH, Guttmacher AE: Marshall–Smith syndrome: Further evidence of an osteochondrodysplasia in long-term survivors. David W. Smith Morphogenesis and Malformations Workshop, Winston-Salem, NC, August, 1992. Proceedings of the Greenwood Genetic Center 12:70, 1993.

- .

- Tzu-Jou Wang (2002). Marshall–Smith syndrome in a Taiwanese patient with T-cell immunodeficiency. Am J Med Genet Part A;112 (1):107-108.

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

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.

Malpuech syndrome has been shown to have physical, or phenotypical similarities with several other genetic disorders. A report by Reardon et al. (2001) of a nine-year-old boy exhibiting facial, caudal and urogenital anomalies consistent with Malpuech syndrome, who also had skeletal malformites indicative of Juberg-Hayward syndrome, suggests that the two disorders may be allelic (caused by different mutations of the same gene).

Along with several other disorders that have similar, or overlapping features and autosomal recessive inheritance, Malpuech syndrome has been considered to belong under the designation "3MC syndrome". Titomanlio et al. (2005) described a three-year-old female known to have Michels syndrome. In their review of the physical similarities between Michels, Malpuech and Mingarelli-Carnevale syndromes—particularly the facial appearance including instances of cleft lip and palate, and ptosis, and a similarity of congenital abdominal and urogenital anomalies—they believed the syndromes may represent a spectrum of genetic disorders rather than three individual disorders. They initially suggested this spectrum could be named 3MC (Michels-Malpuech-Mingarelli-Carnevale) syndrome. This conclusion and the name 3MC syndrome was supported by Leal et al. (2008), who reported a brother and sister with an array of symptoms that overlapped the various syndromes. Further assertion of 3MC syndrome was by Rooryck et al. (2011) in an elaboration of its cause.