ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2026
Evaluation of Tremor-Assisted Eating Devices: A Comparative Study of Usability and Patient Preference in Essential Tremor.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA number of adaptive devices are marketed and sold to patients with tremor; however, there is essentially no published data on their efficacy.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the objective efficacy and subjective preferences of 6 commercially available adaptive eating devices for patients with tremor.
methodsWe compared six devices (Gyenno Spoon, Tremelo, a weighted spoon, S'up Spoon, Steady Spoon, and Eli Spoon) and a regular "control" spoon using an objective eating test. We measured the percentage of successfully transferred couscous to a cup adjacent to the subject's mouth and recorded relative patient preferences.
resultsThe mean percentages of successful transfer, in descending order of success, were as follows: S'up Spoon (93.6%), Gyenno Spoon (88.9%), weighted spoon (80.7%), Tremelo (78.0%), Steady Spoon (78.9%), control (74.3%), and Eli Spoon (67.6%). Subjective preferences ranked from best to worst based on average ranking were as follows: weighted spoon, S'up Spoon, Gyenno Spoon, Tremelo, control, Steady Spoon, and Eli Spoon.
conclusionOverall, simple strategies, including a deeper bowl and heavier spoon, outperformed more complicated counterweight/actuator devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.