Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media, as well as to allow video information to be shared for both marketing, analytics and editorial purposes.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content
BMC is moving to Springer Nature Link. Visit this journal in its new home.

Table 4 Comparison of anxiety disorder prevalence rates among FXS with ID vs. Idiopathic ID, FXS without ID vs. General Population and FXS vs. Williams Syndrome

From: Clinical assessment of DSM-IV anxiety disorders in fragile X syndrome: prevalence and characterization

 

ID comparisona

Non-ID comparisonb

Genetic syndrome comparisonc

Anxiety type

FXS + ID

IDd

FXS-ID

Gen. Pop.e

FXS

WSf

Any anxiety disorder

87.9%*

10.5%

76.3%*

9.8%

82.5%*

62.1%

Separation anxiety

10.3%

1.9%

13.5%*

2.3%

11.5%

6.1%

Social phobia

32.8%*

1.9%

43.2%*

4.5%

36.5%*

2.3%

Specific phobia

70.7%*

6.8%

42.9%*

1.3%

59.6%

56.1%

Panic Disorder

6.9%

N/A

2.9%

N/A

5.4%

N/A

 -Agoraphobia

1.7%

0.2%

0.0%

N/A

1.1%

N/A

 +Agoraphobia

5.2%*

0.2%

0.0%

N/A

3.2%

N/A

Agoraphobia

17.9%*

1.1%

5.6%

1.4%

12.9%

N/A

GAD

21.4%*

0.0%

27.8%*

3.1%

23.7%*

7.6%

OCD

26.8%*

1.5%

19.4%

N/A

23.7%*

1.5%

PTSD

1.7%

0.0%

8.6%

N/A

4.3%

1.5%

Selective mutism

27.6%

N/A

22.2%

N/A

25.3%

N/A

  1. aControl for multiple comparisons used, significant differences are p<.0025
  2. bControl for multiple comparisons used, significant differences are p<.00417
  3. cControl for multiple comparisons used, significant differences are p<.00357
  4. dDekker (2003) using DISC-IV-P, N = 474, eSchaffer (1999) using DISC 2.3, N = 1,285, fLeyfer (2009) N = 132 using ADIS-IV
  5. * Difference is significant at the corrected (p) value