ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Suction cup handholds have low efficacy in laboratory evaluation with typical bathing conditions and wall materials.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Suction cup handholds are sometimes recommended by Occupational Therapists for bathing transfers when permanent grab bars are not feasible. The efficacy of suction cup handholds on typical bathroom surfaces is unknown. Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy and failure characteristics of two brands of suction cup handholds on six typical bathtub wall surfaces, under environmental and loading conditions associated with bathing. Method: Eighteen suction cup handholds underwent controlled longevity testing under wet and dry conditions in separate sessions. Handhold efficacy was evaluated through (a) visual inspection, (b) manual manipulation, and (c) controlled loading, with days to failure and other failure details as outcome measures. Findings: No handhold-wall sample combinations were effective over the 28 day test period, with at least one handhold on each wall sample failing on day one. Handhold failure was most frequently due to sliding along the wall surface, and occurred most frequently during manual manipulation testing. Conclusion: Handhold efficacy was poor in a controlled experimental environment. These results can inform clinicians of the risks suction cup handholds pose and assist in clinical recommendations against their use.
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.