title: What is the functional significance of nondominant arm tremor in essential tremor?
abstract: Tremor in the dominant arm is often the focus of clinical attention in essential tremor (ET) yet many daily activities require both arms. The functional relevance of nondominant arm tremor has rarely been studied. In 181 right-handed patients with ET, action tremor in each arm was rated using a clinical rating scale. Tremor disability was self-reported and a performance-based test of function was administered. Independently of tremor on the right, greater tremor severity on the left was associated with greater self-reported disability (P = 0.02) and greater performance-based dysfunction (P < 0.001). In 5.0% of patients, tremor was largely restricted to the nondominant arm. Nondominant arm tremor, independent of dominant arm tremor, had a significant functional correlate, contributing to both greater perceived and greater observable functional difficulty. In 5% of patients, tremor in the nondominant arm was the likely motivator for seeking care, which is another indication of its functional significance. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society.
authors.affiliation: GH Sergievsky Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. EDL2@columbia.edu
authors.forename: Elan D
authors.initials: ED
authors.lastname: Louis
authors.forename: Marina
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gerbin
authors.forename: Mary M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Mullaney
mesh_terms: D000203:Activities of Daily Living; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001132:Arm / Q000503:physiopathology*; D020329:Essential Tremor / Q000503:physiopathology*; D005260:Female; D007839:Functional Laterality / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D014202:Tremor / Q000503:physiopathology*
references.citation: Neurologist. 2007 Sep;13(5):253-60
references.pmid: 17848865
references.citation: Mov Disord. 2000 May;15(3):516-23
references.pmid: 10830418
references.citation: Brain. 1994 Aug;117 ( Pt 4):805-24
references.pmid: 7922467
references.citation: Lancet. 2007 Apr 7;369(9568):1152-4
references.pmid: 17416247
references.citation: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1972 Jun;35(3):365-72
references.pmid: 5035310
references.citation: J Neurol. 1993 Nov;241(1):54-61
references.pmid: 8138823
references.citation: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2002 Jul;2(4):324-30
references.pmid: 12044252
references.citation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 May;87(5):661-70
references.pmid: 16635629
references.citation: Arch Neurol. 1985 Nov;42(11):1082-3
references.pmid: 4051838
references.citation: Arch Neurol. 1999 Jul;56(7):841-6
references.pmid: 10404986
references.citation: Arch Neurol. 1998 Dec;55(12):1553-9
references.pmid: 9865800
references.citation: J Am Geriatr Soc. 1968 May;16(5):622-6
references.pmid: 5646906
references.citation: Mov Disord. 1998 Mar;13(2):287-93
references.pmid: 9539343
references.citation: Neurology. 2005 Aug 9;65(3):391-6
references.pmid: 16087903
references.citation: Mov Disord. 2009 Jan 15;24(1):108-11
references.pmid: 18973247
references.citation: Brain. 1949 Jun;72(Pt. 2):113-39
references.pmid: 18136705