ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Diagnostic performance of essential tremor criteria in electronic health records: a retrospective neurology cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prevalence of Diagnosed Essential Tremor Using Electronic Healthcare Records: A Population-Based Study in Northeast-Central Pennsylvania.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The 2018 Movement Disorder Society criteria introduced stricter diagnostic requirements for essential tremor (ET) compared with the 1998 consensus; however, how electronic health record (EHR)-based ET diagnostic coding aligns with chart-adjudicated criteria in routine practice remains unclear. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of EHR-based ET coding relative to chart-adjudicated criteria in a US neurology practice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study within the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania. Patients with neurologist-assigned ET diagnoses were identified and stratified as ET-only or ET with differential diagnostic coding. A stratified random sample underwent manual chart review. Clinical features were mapped to both criteria after one and two visits. Accuracy metrics-sensitivity, specificity, sample-based positive predictive value (PPV), and sample-based negative predictive value (NPV)-were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Results: The reviewed sample included 447 ET-only cases and 137 with differential. With one visit, the 1998 criteria yielded sensitivity of 96% (94-98%), specificity of 60% (53-67%), PPV of 82% (78-86%), and NPV of 88% (82-94%). The 2018 criteria demonstrated similar sensitivity (96%, 94-98%) but lower specificity (38%, 32-44%) and PPV of 53% (48-58%), with NPV of 93% (88-98%). With ≥2 visits, specificity increased to 71% (61-81%) and PPV to 85% (80-90%) for the 1998 criteria, and to 51% (43-59%) and 65% (57-71%) for the 2018 criteria. Conclusion: In this cohort, ET diagnostic coding showed consistently high sensitivity and NPV across frameworks. Specificity and PPV differed by criterion and improved with multiple clinical encounters.
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.