J M Gelauff1, J G M Rosmalen2, J Gardien1, J Stone3, M A J Tijssen4. 1. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Neurology, the Netherlands. 2. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Psychiatry, the Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Internal Medicine, the Netherlands. 3. University of Edinburgh, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 4. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Neurology, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.a.j.de.koning-tijssen@umcg.nl.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Functional motor disorders are often delineated according to the dominant motor symptom. In a large cohort, we aimed to find if there were differences in demographics, mode of onset, pain, fatigue, depression and anxiety and levels of physical functioning, quality of life and social adjustment between patients with different dominant motor symptoms. METHODS: Baseline data from the Self-Help and Education on the Internet for Functional Motor Disorders Trial was used. Patients were divided into dominant motor symptom groups based on the diagnosis of the referring neurologist. Data on the above topics were collected by means of an online questionnaire and compared between groups using parametric and nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: In 160 patients a dominant motor symptom could be determined, 31 had tremor, 45 myoclonus, 23 dystonia, 30 paresis, 31 gait disorder. No statistical differences between groups were detected for demographics, mode of onset and severity of pain, fatigue, depression and anxiety. Physical functioning was worse in the gait disorder group (median 20, IQR 25) compared to tremor (50 (55), p = 0.002) and myoclonus (50 (52), p = 0.001). Work and social adjustment was less impaired in the myoclonus group (median 20, IQR 18) compared to gait disorder (median 30, IQR18, p < 0.001) and paresis (28, IQR 10, p = 0.001). Self-report showed large overlap in motor symptoms. CONCLUSION: No differences were detected between groups of functional motor symptoms, regarding demographics, mode of onset, depression, anxiety, pain and fatigue. The large overlap in symptoms contributes to the hypothesis of shared underlying mechanisms of functional motor disorders.
INTRODUCTION: Functional motor disorders are often delineated according to the dominant motor symptom. In a large cohort, we aimed to find if there were differences in demographics, mode of onset, pain, fatigue, depression and anxiety and levels of physical functioning, quality of life and social adjustment between patients with different dominant motor symptoms. METHODS: Baseline data from the Self-Help and Education on the Internet for Functional Motor Disorders Trial was used. Patients were divided into dominant motor symptom groups based on the diagnosis of the referring neurologist. Data on the above topics were collected by means of an online questionnaire and compared between groups using parametric and nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: In 160 patients a dominant motor symptom could be determined, 31 had tremor, 45 myoclonus, 23 dystonia, 30 paresis, 31 gait disorder. No statistical differences between groups were detected for demographics, mode of onset and severity of pain, fatigue, depression and anxiety. Physical functioning was worse in the gait disorder group (median 20, IQR 25) compared to tremor (50 (55), p = 0.002) and myoclonus (50 (52), p = 0.001). Work and social adjustment was less impaired in the myoclonus group (median 20, IQR 18) compared to gait disorder (median 30, IQR18, p < 0.001) and paresis (28, IQR 10, p = 0.001). Self-report showed large overlap in motor symptoms. CONCLUSION: No differences were detected between groups of functional motor symptoms, regarding demographics, mode of onset, depression, anxiety, pain and fatigue. The large overlap in symptoms contributes to the hypothesis of shared underlying mechanisms of functional motor disorders.
Authors: T Lagrand; I Tuitert; M Klamer; A van der Meulen; J van der Palen; G Kramer; M Tijssen Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: David L Perez; Timothy R Nicholson; Ali A Asadi-Pooya; Indrit Bègue; Matthew Butler; Alan J Carson; Anthony S David; Quinton Deeley; Ibai Diez; Mark J Edwards; Alberto J Espay; Jeannette M Gelauff; Mark Hallett; Silvina G Horovitz; Johannes Jungilligens; Richard A A Kanaan; Marina A J Tijssen; Kasia Kozlowska; Kathrin LaFaver; W Curt LaFrance; Sarah C Lidstone; Ramesh S Marapin; Carine W Maurer; Mandana Modirrousta; Antje A T S Reinders; Petr Sojka; Jeffrey P Staab; Jon Stone; Jerzy P Szaflarski; Selma Aybek Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 4.881