Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundTremors other than those associated with Parkinson's disease (non-parkinsonian tremor) are commonly observed in clinical settings. However, their frequency and clinical characteristics have rarely been reported.ObjectivesTo classify non-parkinsonian tremors based on the consensus statement on the classification of tremors, from the task force of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society published in 2018.MethodsA prospective registry at a tertiary care teaching institute.ResultsA total of 475 patients with non-parkinsonian tremors were recruited for the study. 67.57% (n = 321) of our patients were male and a family history of tremor was present in 20.84% (n = 99) of patients. Dystonic tremor (DT) was the most common non-parkinsonian tremor (33.26%). 27.78% of patients fulfilled the new classification criteria for essential tremor, with 13.47% classified as pure ET (ET) and 14.31% exhibiting neurological soft signs, leading to the classification of ET plus (ETP). Patients with ETP had more family history (57.35%) [vs DT (26.48%, p = 0.00004) and ET (10.93%, p = 0.00003], longer duration of disease [mean ± standard deviation (SD) = 9.53 ± 8.64 years] [vs DT (5.60 ± 5.93, p = 0.0003) and ET (6.38 ± 5.97, p = 0.01) years], and more severe tremor as measured by the essential tremor rating assessment scale total score [mean ± SD = 27.42 ± 11.70] [vs DT (23.50 ± 8.62, p = 0.007) and ET (22.12 ± 8.19, p = 0.007)] compared with patients with DT and ET.ConclusionsDT was the most common cause of non-parkinsonian tremor in our registry followed by essential tremor syndrome. ETP was more common than ET.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.