Upper extremity function and disability recovery with vibration therapy after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

Results varied widely between trials (I² = 87% for motor impairment, 84% for disability), so the pooled benefit makes the evidence look more consistent than it is. Half the trials (16 of 30) were only medium quality, with a median PEDro score of 6/10; only 6 of the 14 high-quality trials described concealing who got which treatment, none of the medium-quality trials did, and therapists were blinded in just 2 trials. In most trials vibration was added on top of standard rehabilitation and only 6 of the 30 tested it on its own, so the pooled results mostly describe a package of care rather than vibration by itself. Most trials followed people for three months or less and only one continued to six months; where the analysis did look beyond three months, the benefit was no longer there. The authors note that measures of function and disability overlap, and that some trials used more than one motor function measure, which may have muddied the pooled result.

The paper names three Taiwanese funders: the National Health Research Institutes, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the National Science and Technology Council. The supplied text carries no conflict-of-interest declaration from the authors, so nothing can be said about their individual competing interests.

Do not read these pooled effects as proof that vibration on its own drives recovery. In almost every trial it was added on top of standard rehabilitation, and results differed widely from trial to trial, so how much the vibration itself contributed cannot be separated out. The disability benefit also did not show up in people in the chronic stage after stroke.