4.7 Article

Case-control study of writers cramp

Journal

BRAIN
Volume 132, Issue -, Pages 756-764

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awn363

Keywords

dystonia; case-control; risk factors; cortical plasticity; head trauma

Funding

  1. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale
  2. Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris at the Clinical Investigation Center of Saint-Antoine University Hospital
  3. Allergan
  4. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Task-specific focal dystonias are thought to be due to a combination of individual vulnerability and environmental factors. There are no case-control studies of risk factors for writers cramp. We undertook a case-control study of 104 consecutive patients and matched controls to identify risk factors for the condition. We collected detailed data on medical history and writing history as part of hobbies or occupation. Cases had a college or university degree more frequently than controls [OR 4.6 (1.320.5), P 0.01]. The risk of writers cramp increased with the time spent writing each day (P-trend 0.001) and was also associated with an abrupt increase in the writing time during the year before onset (OR 5.7, 95 CI 1.333.9, P 0.02). Head trauma with loss of consciousness [OR 3.5 (1.015.7), P 0.05] and myopia [OR 4.1 (1.712.0), P 0.0009] were both associated with the condition but it was not significantly associated with peripheral trauma, left-handedness, constrained writing, writing in stressful situations or the choice of writing tool. The doseeffect relationship between writers cramp and the time spent handwriting each day, and the additional burden of acute triggers such as an abrupt increase in the writing time in the year before onset, point to a disruptive phenomenon in predisposed subjects. Homeostatic regulation of cortical plasticity may be overwhelmed, resulting in dystonia.

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