Whole-Body Vibration to Improve Physical Function Parameters in Nursing Home Residents Older Than 80 Years: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Borja Sañudo, Gonzalo Reverte-Pagola, Adérito Seixas and 1 others
PMID 38423527WHAT IT FOUND
Whole-body vibration on a platform improved lower limb strength, balance, and mobility in nursing home residents over 80.
Walking speed did not improve. The 14 trials used very different protocols, so the best settings remain unclear.
Key findings
01Whole-body vibration significantly improved lower limb muscle strength (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.03, P = .007) and mobility on the Timed Up and Go test (SMD 0.45, P = .01), but isometric strength (P = .11) and walking speed (P = .51) did not reach significance.
02Balance improved (SMD 0.41, P = .05) and the Short Physical Performance Battery score showed the largest pooled effect (SMD 1.33, P = .009), though the SPPB result rests on only 4 studies with 71% heterogeneity.
03The 14 trials used widely different vibration protocols (frequency 3 to 40 Hz, amplitude 0.9 to 8 mm, duration 4 to 24 weeks), and most failed to blind participants or conceal allocation.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most of the included trials did not blind participants or conceal who received the vibration, so the results may be inflated by expectation. The vibration protocols varied enormously (frequency 3 to 40 Hz, amplitude 0.9 to 8 mm, duration 4 to 24 weeks), making it hard to say which settings work best. Heterogeneity was substantial in mobility (I² 70%), balance (I² 76%), and the SPPB (I² 71%), meaning the individual studies did not agree well. The SPPB result, the largest effect in the review, comes from only 4 studies. Isometric strength and walking speed did not improve, so the benefit is not uniform across all physical function measures. Some trials were excluded because the authors could not supply complete data.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the SPPB effect size of 1.33 as a proven, large benefit. It comes from only 4 studies with 71% heterogeneity. The balance result is at the very edge of significance (P = .05) with 76% heterogeneity. And the 14 trials used such different vibration settings that no single protocol is proven.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →