Essential Tremor Suppression with a Novel Anti‐Tremor Orthosis: A Randomized Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Essential tremor (ET) is characterized by action tremor of the arms, which can interfere substantially with daily activities. Pharmacotherapy may be ineffective or associated with side effects, and stereotactic surgery is invasive. Hence, new accessible treatment options are urgently needed. An easy-to-use and lightweight orthotic device that exerts joint damping may provide an alternative solution for reducing tremor in daily activities. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess the efficacy of a novel anti-tremor orthosis (STIL) in reducing clinical and accelerometry measures of distal arm tremor in ET. METHODS: In a randomized crossover single-blinded trial in 24 ET patients in a hospital setting, we compared three conditions: no orthosis (baseline), a sham device, and the anti-tremor orthosis (order randomized). The orthosis, but not the sham device, passively damped joints in the forearm. Participants performed seven tasks from the Tremor Research Group Essential Tremor Rating Scale (TETRAS). The two co-primary outcome measures were: clinical tremor severity (video-scored TETRAS) and tremor power (accelerometry). Patient satisfaction was self-assessed using the Dutch Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology. Conditions were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: The anti-tremor orthosis significantly reduced TETRAS scores compared to sham and baseline (baseline: 19.0 ± 3.2, sham: 13.7 ± 3.9, orthosis: 9.9 ± 3.6; mean ± standard deviation). Similar effects were observed for tremor power, which was reduced by 87.4% (orthosis vs. baseline) and 59.5% (orthosis vs. sham) across all tasks. A total of 71% of participants were (very) satisfied and 12.5% reported minor adverse events (discomfort/redness of skin). CONCLUSION: The anti-tremor orthosis had a clinically relevant tremor-reducing effect in ET in a controlled setting, offering potential for a new treatment to manage ET in daily activities. © 2025 The Author(s). Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".