SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Exploring Interrater Disagreement on Essential Tremor Using a Standardized Tremor Elements Assessment.

Mov Disord Clin Pract · 2021-02-12

DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.13150PMID: 33816665

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundPatients with upper limb action tremor frequently exhibit additional neurological signs of uncertain significance. Clinicians vary in their interpretation, and interrater agreement on the final diagnosis is poor.ObjectivesA new clinical tool for assessing the presence or absence of clinical signs that are important in axis-1 classification of tremor patients is introduced: the Standardized Tremor Elements Assessment (STEA). Interrater agreement is determined, and signs leading to disagreement in the final diagnosis are identified.MethodsThree tremor-focussed and one dystonia-focussed movement disorder specialists rated 59 videos of patients with upper limb action tremor syndromes using STEA. Interrater agreements for final diagnosis and STEA items were calculated.ResultsInterrater agreement regarding the final diagnosis was higher within the group of tremor specialists and poor between dystonia and tremor specialists. Greater agreement was found for items characterizing tremor than for signs of dystonia.ConclusionsClinical signs leading to diagnostic disagreement were identified with STEA, and STEA should therefore be useful in future studies of diagnostic disagreement. The thresholds for considering neurological signs as soft versus significant for ataxia, parkinsonism, dystonia, etc. are critically important in tremor classification and must be studied across movement disorder subspecialties, not simply within a pool of tremor specialists.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.