ArticleScientific reports2025
Social cognitive impact of essential tremor.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Empathy and alexithymia in essential tremor.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Uncovering Cognitive Subtypes in Essential Tremor: A Data-Driven Clustering Approach in Cognitively Normal Individuals.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Though classified as a movement disorder, essential tremor (ET) goes along with minor cognitive change. This mainly refers to executive functions, thought to be of paramount importance for social cognition, particularly cognitive theory of mind (ToM). Therefore, different ToM and executive tasks were assessed in persons with versus without essential tremor. 21 non-demented patients with essential tremor and 29 healthy controls underwent cognitive screening, different tasks addressing executive functions, and the faux pas recognition test (FPRT) as well as the reading the mind in the eye test (RMET), focusing on cognitive and affective ToM, respectively. Patients performed significantly worse than controls in the verbal fluency and the digit span tests as well as in the FPRT. No significant group differences were identified with respect to RMET performance. The results are compatible with the idea that persons with ET develop subtle cognitive ToM deficits in the context of executive dysfunction. This extends descriptions of the non-motor impact of ET by deficits in social cognition and raises the question whether potential cognitive change of affected patients is sufficiently acknowledged in clinical routine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.