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.

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.

When screening tests predict a high risk of Down syndrome, a more invasive diagnostic test (amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling) is needed to confirm the diagnosis. If Down syndrome occurs in one in 500 pregnancies and the test used has a 5% false-positive rate, this means, of 26 women who test positive on screening, only one will have Down syndrome confirmed. If the screening test has a 2% false-positive rate, this means one of eleven who test positive on screening have a fetus with DS. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are more reliable tests, but they increase the risk of miscarriage between 0.5 and 1%. The risk of limb problems is increased in the offspring due to the procedure. The risk from the procedure is greater the earlier it is performed, thus amniocentesis is not recommended before 15 weeks gestational age and chorionic villus sampling before 10 weeks gestational age.

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

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.

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

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 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.

According to the Williams Syndrome Association, diagnosis of Williams syndrome begins with recognition of physical symptoms and markers, which is followed by a confirmatory genetic test. The physical signs that often indicate a suspected case of Williams syndrome include puffiness around the eyes, a long philtrum, and a pattern in the iris. Physiological symptoms that often contribute to a Williams syndrome diagnosis are cardiovascular problems, particularly aortic or pulmonary stenosis, as well as feeding disturbance in infants. Developmental delays are often taken as an initial sign of the syndrome, as well.

If a physician suspects a case of Williams syndrome, the diagnosis is confirmed using one of two possible genetic tests: micro-array analysis or the fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) test. The FISH test examines chromosome #7 and probes for the existence of two copies of the elastin gene. Since 98-99% of individuals with Williams syndrome lack half of the 7q11.23 region of chromosome #7, where the elastin gene is located, the presence of only one copy of the gene is a strong sign of the syndrome. This confirmatory genetic test has been validated in epidemiological studies of the syndrome, and has been demonstrated to be a more effective method of identifying Williams syndrome than previous methods, which often relied on the presence of cardiovascular problems and facial features (which, while common, are not always present).

Some diagnostic studies suggest that reliance on facial features to identify Williams syndrome may cause a misdiagnosis of the condition. Among the more reliable features suggestive of Williams are congenital heart disease, periorbital fullness ("puffy" eyes), and the presence of a long smooth philtrum. Less reliable signs of the syndrome include anteverted nostrils, a wide mouth, and an elongated neck. Researchers indicate that even with significant clinical experience, it is difficult to reliably identify Williams syndrome based on facial features alone.

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.

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 involves consideration of physical features and genetic testing. Presence of split uvula is a differentiating characteristic from Marfan Syndrome, as well as the severity of the heart defects. Loeys-Dietz Syndrome patients have more severe heart involvement and it is advised that they be treated for enlarged aorta earlier due to the increased risk of early rupture in Loeys-Dietz patients. Because different people express different combinations of symptoms and the syndrome was identified in 2005, many doctors may not be aware of its existence, although clinical guidelines were released in 2014-2015. Dr. Harold Dietz, Dr. Bart Loeys, and Dr. Kenneth Zahka are considered experts in this condition.

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.

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.

Syndactyly and other deformities are typically observed and diagnosed at birth. Long QT syndrome sometimes presents itself as a complication due to surgery to correct syndactyly. Other times, children collapse spontaneously while playing. In all cases it is confirmed with ECG measurements. Sequencing of the CACNA1C gene further confirms the diagnosis.

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 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

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

More than 80% of children with Patau syndrome die within the first year of life. Children with the mosaic variation are usually affected to a lesser extent. In a retrospective Canadian study of 174 children with trisomy 13, median survival time was 12.5 days. One and ten year survival was 19.8% and 12.9% respectively.

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.

Diagnosis of 48, XXXY is usually done by a standard karyotype. A karyotype is a chromosomal analysis in which a full set of chromosomes can be seen for an individual. The presence of the additional 2 X chromosomes on the karyotype are indicative of XXXY syndrome.

Another way to diagnosis 48, XXXY is by chromosomal microarray showing the presence of extra X chromosomes. Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is used to detect extra or missing chromosomal segments or whole chromosomes. CMA uses microchip-based testing to analyze many pieces of DNA. Males with 48, XXXY are diagnosed anywhere from before birth to adulthood as a result of the range in the severity of symptoms. The age range at diagnosis is likely due to the fact that XXXY is a rare syndrome, and does not cause as extreme phenotypes as other variants of Klinefelter syndrome (such as XXXXY).

Diagnostic testing could also be done via blood samples. Elevated levels of follicle stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and low levels of testosterone can be indicative of this syndrome.

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.

In terms of the diagnosis of Romano–Ward syndrome the following is done to ascertain the condition(the "Schwartz Score" helps in so doing):

- Exercise test

- ECG

- Family history

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.