Dear Editor
We read with interest the review by Castrillo-Fraile et al.1 on tremor-control devices for essential tremor (ET). This is the first clinical review in which these systems have been analyzed thoroughly and helps to fill in the knowledge gap regarding the role of these technologies in assisting ET patients. However, there are three aspects that need further development.
First, tremor-cancelling devices are based on different approaches: wearable exoskeletons, orthoses, and handheld external devices, such as spoons. Nevertheless, computer softwares or hardwares to control kinetic tremor caused due to the mouse of a PC in ET patients were not included in this review.2,3 It would be interesting to consider them in upcoming studies due to their potential applications in daily-life and industries.
Second, as the authors emphasize in their systematic review, the evidence documented so far is scant, partly due to the different methodologies and the scarce number of subjects included in these studies. We would also like to underline the lack of independent testing outside the initial ones and also the scant publications of negative studies, which are crucial to understand important methodological and technological issues that could surely result in the improved development of otherwise encouraging solutions.4,5
Finally, in this review, some methodological aspects are discussed, such as the body location, the clinical outcomes used and some technological features of certain tremor-cancelation prototypes. However, in our opinion, the authors missed a key methodological issue, which is the inherent variability of tremor intensity during testing.6 This is something that we have consistently observed in various research studies related to tremor-cancelling systems even after modifying the test length and the temporal windows used in the analyses.7–11 Importantly, nonstimulation periods may even show greater tremor-intensity fluctuations when testing a novel device4 as compared to those used for stimulation. This issue can confound the interpretation of testing protocols that do not include long enough nonstimulation periods, although their ideal duration also remains to be defined.
Besides, considering these issues in future studies, a more permanent solution might include the creation of a multidisciplinary group that establishes consensus statements on recommendable methodologies for validating tremor-cancelling technologies, similarly to what is happening in other movement disorders.12–14
Footnotes
In Response To:
Castrillo-Fraile V, Peña EC, Gabriel Y, Galán JMT, Delgado-López PD, Collazo C, Cubo E. Tremor control devices for essential tremor: a systematic literature review. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov. 2019;9. doi: 10.7916/tohm.v0.688
Citation: López-Blanco R, Benito-León J, Hernández-Gallego J, Sánchez-Ferro Á. The Validation of Tremor-Cancelling Technologies Needs a Multidisciplinary Consensus Statement. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov. 2020: 10. doi: 10.7916/tohm.v0.765
Editor: Elan D. Louis, Yale University, USA
Funding: None.
Financial Disclosures: None.
Conflict of Interest: The authors report no conflict of interest.
Ethics Statement: Not applicable for this category of article.
References
- 1.Castrillo-Fraile V, Peña EC, Gabriel Y, Galán JMT, Delgado-López PD, Collazo C, et al. Tremor control devices for essential tremor: a systematic literature review. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov 2019;9:1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.SteadyMouse LLC. The Steady Mouse Project. 2019. Available from: https://www.steadymouse.com/ [cited 28 Dec 2019]. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rocon E, Miranda JA, Pons JL. TechFilter: filtering undesired tremorous movements from PC mouse cursor. Technol Disabil 2006;18(1):3–8. doi: 10.3233/TAD-2006-18101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lora-Millán JS, López-Blanco R, Gallego JÁ, Méndez-Guerrero A, González de la Aleja J, Rocon E. Mechanical vibration does not systematically reduce the tremor in essential tremor patients. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):16476. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-52988-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Petty S, Gross RA. Neurology® null hypothesis: a special supplement for negative, inconclusive, or confirmatory studies. Neurology 2018;91(1):12–13. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cleeves L, Findley LJ. Variability in amplitude of untreated essential tremor. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987;50(6):704–708. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.50.6.704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Heo JH, Kim JW, Kwon Y, Lee SK, Eom GM, Kwon DY, et al. Sensory electrical stimulation for suppression of postural tremor in patients with essential tremor. Biomed Mater Eng 2015;26:S803–S809. doi: 10.3233/BME-151372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dosen S, Muceli S, Dideriksen JL, Romero JP, Rocon E, Pons J, et al. Online tremor suppression using electromyography and low-level electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2015;23(3):385–395. doi: 10.3233/BME-151372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dideriksen JL, Laine CM, Dosen S, Muceli S, Rocon E, Pons JL, et al. Electrical stimulation of afferent pathways for the suppression of pathological tremor. Front Neurosci 2017;11:178. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gallego JÁ, Rocon E, Belda-Lois JM, Pons JL. A neuroprosthesis for tremor management through the control of muscle co-contraction. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2013;10(36):1–13. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-36 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Rocon E, Belda-Lois JM, Ruiz AF, Manto M, Moreno JC, Pons JL. Design and validation of a rehabilitation robotic exoskeleton for tremor assessment and suppression. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2007;15(1):367–378. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2007.903917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Espay AJ, Hausdorff JM, Sanchez-Ferro A, Klucken J, Merola A, Bonato P, et al. A roadmap for implementation of patient-centered digital outcome measures in Parkinson’s disease obtained using mobile health technologies. Mov Disord 2019;34(5):657–663. doi: 10.1002/mds.27671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Artusi CA, Mishra M, Latimer P, Vizcarra JA, Lopiano L, Maetzler W, et al. Integration of technology-based outcome measures in clinical trials of Parkinson and other neurodegenerative diseases. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2018;46 Suppl 1:S53–S56. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.07.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Maetzler W, Klucken J, Horne M. A clinical view on the development of technology-based tools in managing Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2016;31(9):1263–1271. doi: 10.1002/mds.26673 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]