Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34988457›Full record

ArticleBMJ neurology open2021

Computerised analysis of writing and drawing by essential tremor phenotype.

James Peters, Mohammod Abdul Motin, Laura Perju-Dumbrava, Sheik Mohammed Ali, Catherine Ding, Michael Eller, Sanjay Raghav, Dinesh Kant Kumar, Peter Kempster

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ neurology open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Computer Vision Scoring of Figure Copy and Recall.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. The Role of Visual Information Quantity in Fine Motor Performance.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. The role of laboratory investigations in the classification of tremors.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

James PetersNeurosciences Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Mohammod Abdul MotinDepartment of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1618-3772
Laura Perju-DumbravaNeurosciences Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3232-3379
Sheik Mohammed AliDepartment of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Catherine DingNeurosciences Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Michael EllerNeurosciences Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2797-4676
Sanjay RaghavNeurosciences Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Dinesh Kant KumarDepartment of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Peter KempsterNeurosciences Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Monash Medical Centre · AURMIT University · AURajshahi University of Engineering and Technology · BD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated whether computerised analysis of writing and drawing could discriminate essential tremor (ET) phenotypes according to the 2018 Consensus Statement on the Classification of Tremors. The Consensus scheme emphasises soft additional findings, mainly motor, that do not suffice to diagnose another tremor syndrome. Ten men and nine women were classified by blinded assessors according to Consensus Axis 1 definitions of ET and ET plus. Blinded scoring of tremor severity and alternating limb movement was also conducted. Twenty healthy participants acted as controls. Four writing and three drawing tasks were performed on a Wacom Intuos Pro Large digital tablet with a pressure-sensor mounted ink pen. Sixty-seven computerised measurements were obtained, comprising static (dimensional and temporal), kinematic and pen pressure features. The mean age of ET participants was 67.2±13.0 years and mean tremor duration was 21.7±19.0 years. Six were classified as ET, five had one plus feature and eight had two plus features. The computerised analysis could predict the presence and number of ET plus features. Measures of acceleration and variation of pen pressure performed strongly to separate ET phenotypes (p<0.05). Plus features were associated with higher scores on the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (p=0.001) and it appeared that ET groups were mainly being separated according to severity of tremor and by compensatory manoeuvres used by participants with more severe tremor. There were, in addition, a small number of negative kinematic correlations suggesting some slowness with ET plus. Abnormal repetitive limb movement was also correlated with tremor severity (R=0.57) by clinical grading. Critics of the Consensus Statement have drawn attention to weaknesses of the ET plus concept in relation to duration and severity of ET. This classification of ET may be too biased towards tremor severity to assist in distinguishing underlying biological differences by clinical measurement.

Indexed as

clinical neurologymovement disorderstremor

Identifiers

PMID34988457
PMCPMC8679070
OpenAlexW4200302686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.