4.6 Article

Jaw tremor: Prevalence and clinical correlates in three essential tremor case samples

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 21, 期 11, 页码 1872-1878

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.21069

关键词

essential tremor; epidemiology; prevalence; correlates; jaw tremor

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR00645] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS42859, R01 NS39422] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spectrum of involuntary movements seen in essential tremor (ET) is limited. Jaw tremor is one such movement. The prevalence and clinical correlates of jaw tremor have not been studied in detail. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence and examine the clinical correlates of jaw tremor in ET using ET cases from three distinct settings (population, tertiary-referral center, brain repository). All ET cases underwent a videotaped tremor examination in which tremors (including limb, head, voice, and jaw) were assessed. The prevalence [95% confidence interval (Q] of jaw tremor was lowest in the population sample (7.5%; 3.9%-14.2%), intermediate in the tertiary-referral center (10.1%; 6.8%-14.7%), and highest in the brain repository (18.0%; 12.3%-25.5%; P = 0.03). Jaw tremor was associated with older age (P < 0.001), more severe action tremor of the arms (P < 0.001), and presence of head and voice tremor (P < 0.001). Jaw tremor was present in 4/14 (28.6%) ET cases with consistent rest tremor vs. 15/193 (7.8%) cases without rest tremor (odds ratio = 4.8; 95% CI = 1.3-7.0; P = 0.009). The prevalence of jaw tremor was 7.5% to 18.0% and was dependent on the mode of ascertainment, being least prevalent in a population-based sample. ET cases with jaw tremor had a more clinically severe and more topographically widespread disorder. The association in our study between jaw tremor and rest tremor, along with the published observation that jaw tremor can occur in Parkinson's disease (PD), raises the question whether jaw tremor in ET is a marker for subsequent conversion to PD.

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

4.6
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