4.7 Article

Population-based case-control study of cognitive function in essential tremor

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages 69-74

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000192393.05850.ec

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS042859, R01 NS039422] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To determine whether patients with essential tremor (ET) have cognitive deficits when compared with controls and whether the types of cognitive deficits reported previously are also found in this large sampling of patients with ET. Methods: A total of 232 patients with ET and 696 matched controls age 65 years or older (median 75 years) living in central Spain (the Neurologic Diseases in Central Spain study) underwent a neuropsychological assessment, including tests of global cognitive performance, frontal executive function, verbal fluency, and memory. Subjects also were asked whether they had forgetfulness. Results: Fifty-six patients with ET were previously undiagnosed; only 14 (6%) were taking medication for tremor. Adjusted for age, gender, education, premorbid intelligence, medications, and depressive symptoms, cases performed less well on most neuropsychological tests and especially tests of global cognitive performance (37-item Mini-Mental State Examination = 27.0 +/- 6.7 in cases vs 28.9 +/- 5.9 in controls, p < 0.001) and frontal executive function (Trail Making Test number of errors = 8.7 +/- 11.0 in cases vs 3.8 +/- 7.6 in controls, p < 0.001). Forgetfulness was reported in 117 (50.4%) patients with ET vs 300 (43.1%) controls (p = 0.05). Conclusions: In a population-based sample of largely untreated patients with essential tremor, cases performed more poorly on formal neuropsychological testing than did their counterparts without tremor. A complaint of forgetfulness was also marginally more common in patients with essential tremor.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available