4.5 Article

Similar association between objective and subjective symptoms in functional and organic tremor

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 2-7

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2019.05.026

关键词

Functional movement disorder; Tremor; Actigraphy; Self-report; Ambulatory assessment

资金

  1. University of Groningen provided GK the MD/PhD scholarship
  2. Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A previous study reported a dramatic mismatch in objectively detected and self-reported tremor duration in patients with functional tremor. As these findings have an important and widespread impact in both clinical care and research, we conducted a validation study with a longer study duration and a larger sample of patients. Methods: Fourteen patients with functional tremor and 19 with organic tremor completed a 30 day study period. Objective tremor duration was recorded using a wrist-worn accelerometer. Simultaneously, participants completed a web-based diary five times a day, each time rating their symptom burden since the previous diary entry. Results: Patients with functional tremor had shorter objective tremor duration compared to patients with organic tremor (21.6% vs 30.7%, P = 0.034). A post-hoc analysis revealed the difference in objective duration was mainly due to patients with essential tremor (37.2%). Subjective symptom burden was not significantly different between functional and organic tremors (38.7 vs 28.7 on a 0-100 VAS scale, P = 0.138). Finally, a mixed model analysis did not reveal significant differences in the association between subjective and objective tremor symptoms (P = 0.168). Conclusions: patients with functional tremor do have an objectively detectable, persistent tremor during daily life activities. Furthermore, they have a similar symptom burden and a similar association between subjective and objective tremor symptoms as patients with organic tremor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据