ArticleTremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.)2026
Prevalence of Diagnosed Essential Tremor Using Electronic Healthcare Records: A Population-Based Study in Northeast-Central Pennsylvania.
Article in Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders, yet reported prevalence estimates vary widely, likely because of differences in ascertainment strategies, which can influence data validity and comparability. Electronic healthcare records (EHRs) offer an opportunity to estimate prevalence at the population level. However, the impact of these strategies remains incompletely understood, raising questions about the accuracy and generalizability of the resulting estimates. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cross-sectional study using EHR data from the Geisinger Health System (GHS) to identify cases of ET. Cases were mapped to a census-defined population of 1,081,934 individuals aged ≥10 years in Northeast-Central Pennsylvania on April 1, 2020. ET prevalence was assessed using two ascertainment strategies: (1) the neurology cohort and (2) the all-specialties cohort. Age-threshold, age-specific, and sex-stratified prevalence estimates were calculated, along with age-standardized rates based on the 2020 U.S. population. Results: Crude prevalence of ET was 0.261% (95% CI, 0.252-0.271) in the neurology cohort and 0.653% (95% CI, 0.638-0.668) in the all-specialties cohort. Age-standardized prevalence was 0.40% (95% CI, 0.39-0.41) and 1.01% (95% CI, 1.00-1.02), respectively. Prevalence increased progressively with age across both ascertainment strategies, and sex-stratified analyses demonstrated similar age-related patterns with a modest female predominance, particularly in the all-specialties cohort. Discussion: ET prevalence estimates vary substantially depending on ascertainment strategy, with broader EHR-based definitions identifying more than twice as many cases as neurologist-restricted approaches. These findings highlight the importance of standardization in improving comparability across studies.
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.