{"title":"震颤辅助进食装置的评估:特发性震颤的可用性和患者偏好的比较研究。","authors":"Kian Adabi, William Ondo","doi":"10.1002/mdc3.70229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A number of adaptive devices are marketed and sold to patients with tremor; however, there is essentially no published data on their efficacy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study was to evaluate the objective efficacy and subjective preferences of 6 commercially available adaptive eating devices for patients with tremor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, simple strategies, including a deeper bowl and heavier spoon, outperformed more complicated counterweight/actuator devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":19029,"journal":{"name":"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Tremor-Assisted Eating Devices: A Comparative Study of Usability and Patient Preference in Essential Tremor.\",\"authors\":\"Kian Adabi, William Ondo\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mdc3.70229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A number of adaptive devices are marketed and sold to patients with tremor; however, there is essentially no published data on their efficacy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study was to evaluate the objective efficacy and subjective preferences of 6 commercially available adaptive eating devices for patients with tremor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, simple strategies, including a deeper bowl and heavier spoon, outperformed more complicated counterweight/actuator devices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.70229\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.70229","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of Tremor-Assisted Eating Devices: A Comparative Study of Usability and Patient Preference in Essential Tremor.
Background: A number of adaptive devices are marketed and sold to patients with tremor; however, there is essentially no published data on their efficacy.
Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the objective efficacy and subjective preferences of 6 commercially available adaptive eating devices for patients with tremor.
Methods: We 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.
Results: The 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.
Conclusion: Overall, simple strategies, including a deeper bowl and heavier spoon, outperformed more complicated counterweight/actuator devices.
期刊介绍:
Movement Disorders Clinical Practice- is an online-only journal committed to publishing high quality peer reviewed articles related to clinical aspects of movement disorders which broadly include phenomenology (interesting case/case series/rarities), investigative (for e.g- genetics, imaging), translational (phenotype-genotype or other) and treatment aspects (clinical guidelines, diagnostic and treatment algorithms)