Background Consensus criteria for classifying tremor disorders were published by the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society in 1998. Subsequent advances with regard to essential tremor, tremor associated with dystonia, and other monosymptomatic and indeterminate tremors make a significant revision necessary. Objectives Convene an international panel of experienced investigators to review the definition and classification of tremor. Methods Computerized MEDLINE searches in January 2013 and 2015 were conducted using a combination of text words and MeSH terms: “tremor”, “tremor disorders”, “essential tremor”, “dystonic tremor”, and “classification” limited to human studies. Agreement was obtained using consensus development methodology during four in‐person meetings, two teleconferences, and numerous manuscript reviews. Results Tremor is defined as an involuntary, rhythmic, oscillatory movement of a body part and is classified along two axes: Axis 1—clinical characteristics, including historical features (age at onset, family history, and temporal evolution), tremor characteristics (body distribution, activation condition), associated signs (systemic, neurological), and laboratory tests (electrophysiology, imaging); and Axis 2—etiology (acquired, genetic, or idiopathic). Tremor syndromes, consisting of either isolated tremor or tremor combined with other clinical features, are defined within Axis 1. This classification scheme retains the currently accepted tremor syndromes, including essential tremor, and provides a framework for defining new syndromes. Conclusions This approach should be particularly useful in elucidating isolated tremor syndromes and syndromes consisting of tremor and other signs of uncertain significance. Consistently defined Axis 1 syndromes are needed to facilitate the elucidation of specific etiologies in Axis 2. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

No abstract

Tremor is defined as rhythmic oscillatory activity of body parts. Four physiological basic mechanisms for such oscillatory activity have been described: mechanical oscillations; oscillations based on reflexes; oscillations due to central neuronal pacemakers; and oscillations because of disturbed feedforward or feedback loops. New methodological approaches with animal models, positron emission tomography, and mathematical analysis of electromyographic and electroencephalographic signals have provided new insights into the mechanisms underlying specific forms of tremor. Physiological tremor is due to mechanical and central components. Psychogenic tremor is considered to depend on a clonus mechanism and is thus believed to be mediated by reflex mechanisms. Symptomatic palatal tremor is most likely due to rhythmic activity of the inferior olive, and there is much evidence that essential tremor is also generated within the olivocerebellar circuits. Orthostatic tremor is likely to originate in hitherto unidentified brainstem nuclei. Rest tremor of Parkinson's disease is probably generated in the basal ganglia loop, and dystonic tremor may also originate within the basal ganglia. Cerebellar tremor is at least in part caused by a disturbance of the cerebellar feedforward control of voluntary movements, and Holmes' tremor is due to the combination of the mechanisms producing parkinsonian and cerebellar tremor. Neuropathic tremor is believed to be caused by abnormally functioning reflex pathways and a wide variety of causes underlies toxic and drug-induced tremors. The understanding of the pathophysiology of tremor has made significant progress but many hypotheses are not yet based on sufficient data. Modern neurology needs to develop and test such hypotheses, because this is the only way to develop rational medical and surgical therapies.

The cerebellum is assumed to play a major role in the pathophysiology of essential tremor (ET). As intention tremor is considered one of the classical features of cerebellar disease, we have assessed a large group of patients with ET for the semiology of the tremor and have performed objective quantitative analysis of a grasping movement in patients with ET, cerebellar disease and a normal control group. We found 25% of the patients to have a moderate or severe kinetic tremor with clear-cut features of a classical intention tremor. Another 33% of the patients had a mild intentional component of their kinetic tremor. Patients with intention tremor (ET(IT)) did not differ from those with predominant postural tremor (ET(PT)) with respect to alcohol sensitivity of the tremor and the frequency of a family history. ET(IT) patients were older and more often showed head and trunk involvement. The onset of this intention tremor has been assessed retrospectively. It was found to begin at a randomly distributed time interval after the onset of the postural tremor, but older patients had a shorter time to development of intention tremor. Quantitative accelerometry of postural tremor showed similar tremor frequencies in both patient groups, but ET(IT) patients had a slightly larger tremor amplitude. Quantitative analysis of a grasping movement using an infrared-camera system was performed in two subgroups of the patients with ET(PT) and ET(IT) and control groups with cerebellar disease or normal subjects. The intention tremor could be quantified objectively as an increased amplitude of curvature during the deceleration and target phase of the movement. The amplitude measurements of intention tremor were clearly abnormal and of comparable magnitude for ET(PT) and cerebellar disease. Additionally, the patients with ET(IT) had a significantly slowed grasping movement during the deceleration and target period. Hypermetria was significantly increased for the patients with ET(IT) and cerebellar disease. We conclude that intention tremor is a feature of ET. ET(IT) patients have abnormalities of their upper limb function compatible with cerebellar disease. This suggests that patients with more advanced ET show abnormalities of cerebellar functions.