Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Le topiramate pour les tremblements essentiels

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Carrasco Vargas 2011 {published data only}

Carrasco Vargas H, Castellanos Rodriguez J, Aceves Rodriguez R. Prospective double blind study of the use of topiramate vs. placebo in the treatment of essential tremor [Estudio prospectivo doble ciego del uso de topiramato vs. placebo en el tratamiento de temblor esencial]. Neurologia, Neurocirugia, Psiquiatria 2011;44:1‐5. CENTRAL

Connor 2008 {published data only}

Connor GS, Edwards K, Tarsy D. Topiramate in essential tremor: findings from double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover trials. Clinical Neuropharmacology 2008;31(2):97‐103. CENTRAL

Ondo 2006 {published data only}

Ondo WG, Jankovic J, Connor JS, Pahwa R, Elble R, Stacy MA, Topiramate Essential Tremor Study Investigators. Topiramate in essential tremor: a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Neurology 2006;66:672‐7. CENTRAL

References to studies excluded from this review

Bermejo 2007 {published data only}

Bermejo PE,  Dorado R. Topiramate in refractory essential tremor. Revista Neurologia 2007;45(3):188‐9. CENTRAL

Frima 2006 {published data only}

Frima N, Grünewald RA. A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover trial of topiramate in essential tremor. Clinical Neuropharmacology 2006;29(2):94‐6. CENTRAL

Gálvez‐Jimenez 2000 {published data only}

Gálvez‐Jiménez N, Hargreave M. Topiramate and essential tremor. Annals of Neurology 2000;47(6):837‐8. CENTRAL

Gatto 2003 {published data only}

Gatto EM, Roca MC, Raina G, Micheli F. Low doses of topiramate are effective in essential tremor: a report of three cases. Clinical Neuropharmacology 2003;26(6):294‐6. CENTRAL

Siniscalchi 2007 {published data only}

Siniscalchi A,  Gallelli L,  De Sarro G. Combined topiramate and declorazepam therapy in a patient affected by essential tremor. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders 2007;13(2):129‐30. CENTRAL

Zesiewicz 2007b {published data only}

Zesiewicz TA. Low‐dose topiramate (Topamax) in the treatment of essential tremor. Clinical Neuropharmacology 2007;30(4):247‐8. CENTRAL

Additional references

Bain 1997

Bain PG. The effectiveness of treatments for essential tremor. Neurology 1997;3:305‐21.

Bain 1998

Bain PG. Clinical measurement of tremor. Movement Disorders 1998;13 Suppl 3:77‐80.

Bain 2000a

Bain P, Brin M, Deuschl G, Elble R, Jankovic J, Findley L, et al. Criteria for the diagnosis of essential tremor. Neurology 2000;54 Suppl 4:7.

Bain 2000b

Bain PG. Tremor assessment and quality of life measurements. Neurology 2000;54 Suppl 4:26‐9.

Bialer 2004

Bialer M, Johannessen SI, Kupferberg HJ, Levy RH, Perucca E, Tomson T. Progress report on new antiepileptic drugs: a summary of the Seventh Eilat Conference (Eilat VII). Epilepsy Research 2004;61:1‐48.

Busenbark 1991

Busenbark KL, Nash J, Nash S, Hubble JP, Koller WC. Is essential tremor benign?. Neurology 1991;41:1982‐3.

Chouinard 1997

Chouinard S, Luois ED, Fahn S. Agreement among movement disorder specialists on the clinical diagnosis of essential tremor. Movement Disorders 1997;12(6):973‐6.

Connor 2002

Connor GS. A double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial of topiramate treatment for essential tremor. Neurology 2002;59(1):132‐4.

Deuschl 1998

Deuschl G, Bain P, Brin M. Consensus statement of the Movement Disorder Society on tremor. Ad Hoc Scientific Committee. Movement Disorders 1998;13 Suppl 3:2‐23.

Deuschl 2000

Deuschl G, Koller WC. Essential tremor. Neurology 2000;54 Suppl 4:1.

Elble 2013

Elble R, Bain P, Forjaz MJ, Haubenberger D, Testa C, Goetz CG, et al. Task Force Report: scales for screening and evaluating tremor. Critique and recommendations. Movement Disorders 2013;28(13):1793‐800.

Fahn 1993

Fahn S, Tolosa E, Marin C. Clinical rating scale for tremor. In: Jankovic J, Tolosa E editor(s). Parkinson' s Disease and Movement Disorders. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1993:225‐34.

Findley 1995

Findley LJ, Koller W. Definitions and behavioural classifications. In: Findley LG, Koller W editor(s). Handbook of Tremor Disorders. New York: Dekker, 1995:1‐5.

GRADEpro [Computer program]

Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) profile (pro) and Guideline development tool (GDT). Version 3.6. Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2014.

Haerer 1992

Haerer AF, Anderson DW, Schoenberg BS. Prevalence of essential tremor: results from the Copiah county study. Archives of Neurology 1992;39:750‐1.

Hansten 2004

Hansten PD, Horn JR. In: Wickersham RM, O’Dell , JA editor(s). Managing Clinically Important Drug Interactions. St Louis: Facts & Comparisons, 2004.

Higgins 2003

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Huber 1988

Huber SJ, Paulson GW. Efficacy of alprazolam for essential tremor. Neurology 1988;38:241‐3.

Hulihan 2003

Hulihan J, Connor GS, Shu‐Chen W. Topiramate in essential tremor: pooled data from a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover trial. American Academy of Neurology 2003;Abstracts:P04.068.

Jankovic 1996

Jankovic J, Schwartz K, Clemence J. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo controlled study to evaluate botulinum toxin type A in essential tremor. Movement Disorders 1996;11:250‐6.

Jankovic 2002

Jankovic J. Essential tremor: a heterogeneous disorder. Movement Disorders 2002;17:638‐44.

Koller 1986

Koller W, Biary N, Cone S. Disability in essential tremor: effect of treatment. Neurology 1986;36:1001‐4.

Koller 1989

Koller WC, Vetere‐Overfield B. Acute and chronic effects of propranolol and primidone in essential tremor. Neurology 1989;39:1587‐8.

Kralic 2005

Kralic JE, Criswell HE, Osterman JL, O'Buckley TK, Wilkie ME, Matthews DB, et al. Genetic essential tremor in gamma‐aminobutyric acid A receptor alpha1 subunit knockout mice. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2005;115:774‐9.

Louis 1998

Louis ED, Ford B, Lee H. Diagnostic criteria for essential tremor. Archives of Neurology 1998;55:823‐8.

Louis 2001a

Louis ED. Clinical practice, essential tremor. New England Medical Journal 2001;342(12):887‐91.

Louis 2001b

Louis ED, Barnes L, Wendt KJ, Ford B, Sangiorgio M, Tabbal S, et al. A teaching videotape for the assessment of essential tremor. Movement Disorders 2001;16:89‐93.

Louis 2005

Louis ED. Essential tremor. Lancet Neurology 2005;4:100‐10.

Louis 2010

Louis ED, Ferreira JJ. How common is the most common adult movement disorder? Update on the worldwide prevalence of essential tremor. Movement Disorders 2010;25(5):534‐41.

Morita 2005

Morita S, Miwa H, Kondo T. Effect of zonisamide on essential tremor: a pilot crossover study in comparison with arotinolol. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders 2005;11:101‐3.

Ondo 2000

Ondo W, Hunter C, Vuong KD, Schwartz K, Jankovic J. Gabapentin for essential tremor: a multiple‐dose, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Movement Disorders 2000;15(4):678‐82.

Ondo 2004

Ondo WG, Jankovic J, Stacy MA. Topiramate for essential tremor. Neurology 2004;62:LBS.004.

Pahwa 1998

Pahwa R, Lyons K, Hubble JP, Busenbark K, Rienerth JD, Pahwa A, et al. Double‐blind placebo‐controlled study of gabapentin in essential tremor. Movement Disorders 1998;13:465‐7.

Pahwa 2003

Pahwa R, Lyons KE. Essential tremor: differential diagnosis for the development of novel therapeutics. American Journal of Medicine 2003;115:134‐42.

Rajput 1984

Rajput AH, Offord KP, Beard CM, Kurland LT. Essential tremor in Rochester, Minnesota: a 45‐year study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1984;47:466‐70.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Salemi 1994

Salemi G, Savettieri G, Rocca WA, Meneghini F, Saporito V, Morgante L, et al. Prevalence of essential tremor: a door to‐door survey in Terrasini, Sicily. Neurology 1994;44:61‐4.

Shank 2000

Shank RP, Gardocki JF, Streeter AJ, Mryanoff BE. An overview of the preclinical aspects of topiramate: pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and mechanism of action. Epilepsia 2000;41 Suppl 1:3‐9.

Shorvon 2005

Shorvon SD. Handbook of Epilepsy Treatment. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.

Sibbald 1998

Sibbald B, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials: crossover trials. BMJ 1998;316(7146):1719‐20.

Snow 1989

Snow B, Wiens M, Hertzman C, Calne D. A community survey of Parkinson's disease. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1989;141:418‐24.

Stacy 2007

Stacy MA, Elble RJ, Ondo WG, Wu SC, Hulihan J, for the TRS Study Group. Assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability of the Fahn‐Tolosa‐Marin Tremor Rating Scale in essential tremor. Movement disorders 2007;22:833‐8.

Sullivan 2004

Sullivan KL, Hauser RA, Zesiewicz TA. Essential Tremor Epidemiology, Diagnosis and Treatment. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004.

Thompson 1984

Thompson C, Lang A, Parkes JD, Marsden CD. A double‐blind trial of clonazepam in benign essential tremor. Clinical Neuropharmacology 1984;7:83‐8.

Ueda 2003

Ueda Y, Doi T, Tokumaru J, Willmore LJ. Effect of zonisamide on molecular regulation of glutamate and GABA transporter proteins during epileptogenesis in rats with hippocampal seizures. Molecular Brain Research 2003;116:1‐6.

Wasielewski 1998

Wasielewski PG, Burns JM, Koller WC. Pharmacologic treatment of tremor. Movement Disorders 1998;13 Suppl 3:90‐100.

White 2003

White HS. Mechanism of action of newer anticonvulsants. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2003;62 Suppl 8:5‐8.

White 2005

White HS. Molecular pharmacology of topiramate: managing seizures and preventing migraine. Headache 2005;45:48‐56.

Yoshida 2005

Yoshida S, Okada M, Zhu G, Kaneko S. Effects of zonisamide on neurotransmitter exocytosis associated with ryanodine receptors. Epilepsy Research 2005;67:153‐62.

Zappia 2013

Zappia M, Albanese A, Bruno E, Colosimo C, Filippini G, Martinelli P, et al. Italian Movement Disorders Association (DISMOV‐SIN) Essential Tremor Committee. Treatment of essential tremor: a systematic review of evidence and recommendations from the Italian Movement Disorders Association. Journal of Neurology 2013;260(3):714‐40.

Zesiewicz 2002

Zesiewicz TA, Encarnacion E, Hauser RA. Management of essential tremor. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 2002;2:324‐30.

Zesiewicz 2005

Zesiewicz TA, Elble R, Louis ED, Hauser RA, Sullivan KL, Dewey RB, et al. Practice parameter: therapies for essential tremor: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2005;64(12):2008‐20.

Zesiewicz 2007a

Zesiewicz TA, Ward CL, Hauser RA, Sanchez‐Ramos J, Staffetti JF, Sullivan KL. A double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial of zonisamide (Zonegran) in the treatment of essential tremor. Movement Disorders 2007;22:279‐82.

Zesiewicz 2011

Zesiewicz TA, Elble RJ, Louis ED, Gronseth GS, Ondo WG, Dewey RB, et al. Evidence‐based guideline update: treatment of essential tremor: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2011;77(19):1752‐5.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Carrasco Vargas 2011

Methods

Randomised parallel, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study.

Participants

24 participants randomised (12 topiramate; 12 placebo).

Topiramate group: baseline TRS 30.2 (SD 10.2).

Placebo group: baseline TRS 24.0 (SD 11.6).

Interventions

Topiramate 50 mg/day to 200 mg/day; titration 25 mg/week.

Placebo.

Follow‐up: 2 weeks.

Outcomes

TRS total score.

Notes

General and clinical characteristics of participants not reported, mean dose of treatment not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Not used.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

No information regarding how the treatment was supplied and how participants were allocated.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not specified.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Personnel administering the treatment unaware of the content of the containers. No information detailing blinding methods for participants.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information regarding treatment discontinuation.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Not specified.

Other bias

High risk

The study did not provide information about the general characteristics of the population and there was uncertainty regarding the comparability of the 2 groups. The short duration of the follow‐up may have influenced the outcomes assessments.

Connor 2008

Methods

3 pooled, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled cross‐over studies.

Participants

62 participants randomised (30 topiramate; 32 placebo).

Topiramate group: mean age 67 (SD 12) years; men 50%; co‐therapy 83%; baseline TRS 36.8 (SD 17.8).

Placebo group: mean age 57 (SD 15) years; men 44%; co‐therapy 72%; baseline TRS 40.0 (SD 18.9).

Interventions

Topiramate 25 mg to 400 mg (titration 8 weeks); mean dose: 292 mg/day.

Placebo.

Follow‐up: 25 weeks.

Outcomes

TRS total score.

Notes

Duration of disease was not reported; 77% of participants received concomitant anti‐tremor therapy (mainly beta‐blockers).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not specified.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not specified.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"All clinical assessments were made by a rater blinded to the treatment assignment".

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

The trial was described as a "double blind" study but the blinding of participants and personnel was not specified.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Outcome data missed for 13 (43%) participants in the topiramate group and 8 (25%) participants in the placebo group and reasons for missing outcomes differed (more participants with adverse events in the topiramate group). Authors imputed missing outcome data with the use of baseline observation carried forward.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Not specified.

Other bias

High risk

The study was sponsored by, and had at least 1 author affiliated to, the pharmaceutical company of topiramate.

Ondo 2006

Methods

Randomised parallel, multicentre, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study.

Participants

223 participants randomised (117 topiramate; 106 placebo).

Topiramate group: mean age 61 years (SD 13); men 54%; duration of tremor 24 years (SD 17); co‐therapy 46%; baseline TRS 38.7 (SD 12.4).

Placebo group: mean age 64 years (SD 13); men 57%; duration of tremor 22 years (SD 18); co‐therapy 55%; baseline TRS 37.3 (SD 12.0).

Interventions

Topiramate 25 mg to 400 mg (titration 3 months); mean dose: 215 mg/day.

Placebo.

Follow‐up 6 months.

Outcomes

TRS total score and subscales (severity, motor tasks and functional disability).

Notes

Exclusion criteria: history of discontinuing topiramate due to adverse events. 43.5% of participants in the topiramate group and 41% in the placebo group received co‐therapy.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Computerized random number generator"; "Randomisations was one to one to topiramate or placebo with permuted block size of four".

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Study medication supplied in identical containers marked with unique code numbers.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"Investigators who were performing TRS assessment were blinded to all other clinical assessments including medication adverse events".

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"Study medication was supplied as identically appearing 25 or 100 mg topiramate tablets or matching placebo in identical containers marked with unique code numbers prepared by the study sponsor". "The randomisation code was not revealed to patients, investigators, clinical staff, study monitor or study sponsor, personnel until the database was finalized".

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

45 (38.5%) participants in the topiramate group and 23 (22%) in the placebo group discontinued before study completion. Reasons for missing data different across groups (more participants with adverse events in the topiramate group). The intention‐to‐treat population defined as "all randomised patients who took at least one dose of study medication and had at least one on‐treatment efficacy assessment".

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Not specified.

Other bias

High risk

The study was sponsored by, and had at least 1 author affiliated to, the pharmaceutical company of topiramate.

SD: standard deviation; TRS: Tremor Rating Scale.

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Bermejo 2007

Case series.

Frima 2006

Case series.

Gatto 2003

Case series.

Gálvez‐Jimenez 2000

Case series.

Siniscalchi 2007

Case report of combined therapy with topiramate and declorazepam.

Zesiewicz 2007b

Case series.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Topiramate versus placebo/open control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional disability component related to tremor Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, Outcome 1 Functional disability component related to tremor.

Comparison 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, Outcome 1 Functional disability component related to tremor.

1.1 Change in TRS subscale B score

1

208

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.4 [‐8.42, ‐2.38]

1.2 Change in TRS subscale C score

1

208

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.7 [‐8.74, ‐2.66]

1.3 Change in TRS total score

3

273

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐8.91 [‐10.50, ‐7.33]

2 Withdrawals Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, Outcome 2 Withdrawals.

Comparison 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, Outcome 2 Withdrawals.

2.1 Withdrawals: lack of efficacy

2

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.02, 1.53]

2.2 Withdrawals: AEs

2

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.17 [1.79, 5.63]

2.3 Withdrawals: other reasons

2

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.45, 2.05]

2.4 Withdrawals: total

2

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.78 [1.23, 2.60]

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, outcome: 1.1 Functional disability component related to tremor.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, outcome: 1.1 Functional disability component related to tremor.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, outcome: 1.2 Withdrawals.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, outcome: 1.2 Withdrawals.

Comparison 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, Outcome 1 Functional disability component related to tremor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, Outcome 1 Functional disability component related to tremor.

Comparison 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, Outcome 2 Withdrawals.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Topiramate versus placebo/open control, Outcome 2 Withdrawals.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Topiramate for essential tremor

Topiramate for essential tremor

Patient or population: people with essential tremor

Settings: outpatients

Intervention: topiramate

Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Placebo

Topiramate

Functional disability

(follow‐up duration 24 weeks)

TRS subscale B score (motor tasks)

TRS subscale C score (functional disability)

The mean improvement in the control group was
4.9 points for TRS subscale B and 3.7 points for TRS subscale C.

The mean improvement in the intervention groups was
5.4 (2.38 to 8.42) points greater for TRS subscale B and 5.7 (2.66 to 8.74) points greater for TRS subscale C.

223
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2,3

Study withdrawal

(follow‐up duration 10 to 24 weeks)

Number of participants withdrawn from the study

Study population

RR 1.78
(1.23 to 2.60)

285
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,3

217 per 1000

347 per 1000
(252 to 458)

Moderate

Adverse events

(follow‐up duration 24 weeks)

Number of AEs

Study population

221
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,3

71 AEs per 105 participants
(mean 0.7 AEs reported by each participant)

195 AEs per 116 participants
(mean of 1.7 AEs reported by each participant)

Moderate

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

AE: adverse event; CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; TRS: Tremor Rating Scale.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Downgraded due to serious risk of bias: high number of study withdrawals (attrition bias); blinding of outcome assessment probably revealed by the presence of serious AEs in the topiramate group: trials should be regarded as single blind (detection bias); potential conflicts of interest due to the presence of authors sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
2 Downgraded due to serious indirectness: uncertainty about the relevance of the reported TRS‐score changes as indicators of important clinical improvement.

3 Downgraded due to imprecision: small sample size (< 300 participants) and small number of included studies (three).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Topiramate for essential tremor
Comparison 1. Topiramate versus placebo/open control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional disability component related to tremor Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Change in TRS subscale B score

1

208

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.4 [‐8.42, ‐2.38]

1.2 Change in TRS subscale C score

1

208

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.7 [‐8.74, ‐2.66]

1.3 Change in TRS total score

3

273

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐8.91 [‐10.50, ‐7.33]

2 Withdrawals Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Withdrawals: lack of efficacy

2

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.02, 1.53]

2.2 Withdrawals: AEs

2

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.17 [1.79, 5.63]

2.3 Withdrawals: other reasons

2

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.45, 2.05]

2.4 Withdrawals: total

2

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.78 [1.23, 2.60]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Topiramate versus placebo/open control