Abstract
Objective Careful examination is not always able to distinguish myoclonus, tremor, and other jerky movements. Movement neurophysiology studies utilizing surface electromyography and electroencephalography can clarify movement classification, however there has been limited demonstration of their real-world impact on diagnosis and treatment. We investigated their clinical utility in changing jerky movement classification and influencing patient management.
Methods Retrospective single-center study of all myoclonus-related movement studies from 2007-2021, with extraction from reports and clinical documentation.
Results Of 262 patients referred for movement studies for consideration of myoclonus, 105 (40%) had myoclonus, 156 (59%) had no myoclonus (the commonest alternative classifications were functional jerks and tremors), and 1 was uncertain. An additional 29 cases found myoclonus without prior clinical suspicion; this was significantly more common among referrals from non-movement specialty neurologists (15/64, 23%), but also occurred in movement specialist referrals (14/227, 6%, p <0.001). 119/134 (89%) myoclonus cases had a specific physiologic subtype identified, the commonest were cortical (64, 54%) confirmed by cortical transient in 98%, subcortical/non-segmental (22, 18%), and segmental (15, 13%). Diagnostic differential narrowed in 60% of cases, and a new diagnosis (not suspected prior to the movement study) was made in 42 (14%) patients. Medication changes (most commonly guided by myoclonus physiologic subtype) were made in 151 patients (52%), with improvement in 35/51 (67%) with follow-up.
Interpretation Movement studies effectively clarified movement classification and identified unsuspected myoclonus, leading to changes in diagnosis and management. Myoclonus physiologic subtypes led to targeted medication selection and successful treatment in many cases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this study (IRB 18-002646), requirement for consent was waived due to retrospective data collection design.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
REDCap data collection instrument design and format are included in supplement 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, pending institutional approval. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions on individual patient clinical health data.
