The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques · 2000
Difference of disability between electrophysiologic subgroups of essential tremor.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akbostanci M C, Ulkatan S, Yigit A, Aydin N, Mutluer N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to test the validity of the controversial subdivision of essential tremor (ET) patients into electrophysiological subgroups.
METHODS: We evaluated a hundred patients with ET using surface electromyographic (EMG) recordings of antagonists forearm muscles and distinguished three groups: the first group showed synchronous activity of antagonistic muscles, the second showed alternating activity of antagonist muscles; and the third group consisted of patients whose EMG recordings were not compatible with the other two groups. We compared patients with synchronous and alternating activity in terms of sex, age at onset, duration of illness, family history of tremor, symmetry and frequency of tremor, and the scores of a disability scale.
RESULTS: The only significant difference between the patients with synchronous and alternating activity was that the patients with synchronous activity were more disabled.
CONCLUSION: This result adds to the evidence for distinct electrophysiological subgroups of ET with distinct clinical properties.
METHODS: We evaluated a hundred patients with ET using surface electromyographic (EMG) recordings of antagonists forearm muscles and distinguished three groups: the first group showed synchronous activity of antagonistic muscles, the second showed alternating activity of antagonist muscles; and the third group consisted of patients whose EMG recordings were not compatible with the other two groups. We compared patients with synchronous and alternating activity in terms of sex, age at onset, duration of illness, family history of tremor, symmetry and frequency of tremor, and the scores of a disability scale.
RESULTS: The only significant difference between the patients with synchronous and alternating activity was that the patients with synchronous activity were more disabled.
CONCLUSION: This result adds to the evidence for distinct electrophysiological subgroups of ET with distinct clinical properties.