We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Effects of vibration therapy for post-stroke spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Biomedical Engineering Online 2023 December 13
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of vibration therapy (VT) in people with post-stroke spasticity (PSS) remains uncertain. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of VT in PSS.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of VT in people with PSS. The primary outcome was spasticity, and secondary outcomes included pain, motor function, gait performance, and adverse events. A meta‑analysis was performed by pooling the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, VT had significant effects on reducing spasticity (SMD = - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.17 to - 0.36, P < 0.01) and pain (SMD = - 1.09, 95% CI - 1.74 to - 0.45, P < 0.01), and improving motor function (SMD = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, P < 0.01) in people with PSS. However, VT had no significant effect on gait performance (SMD = - 0.23, 95% CI - 0.56-0.10). In addition, subgroup differences in short-term anti-spasticity effects between different vibration subtypes, vibration frequencies, vibration durations, frequency of sessions, control therapy, spasticity distribution, and population classification were not significant.
CONCLUSION: We found that VT significantly alleviated spasticity and pain in people with PSS and improved motor function, but its effect on gait performance was unclear. However, further studies are needed to validate these findings.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of VT in people with PSS. The primary outcome was spasticity, and secondary outcomes included pain, motor function, gait performance, and adverse events. A meta‑analysis was performed by pooling the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, VT had significant effects on reducing spasticity (SMD = - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.17 to - 0.36, P < 0.01) and pain (SMD = - 1.09, 95% CI - 1.74 to - 0.45, P < 0.01), and improving motor function (SMD = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, P < 0.01) in people with PSS. However, VT had no significant effect on gait performance (SMD = - 0.23, 95% CI - 0.56-0.10). In addition, subgroup differences in short-term anti-spasticity effects between different vibration subtypes, vibration frequencies, vibration durations, frequency of sessions, control therapy, spasticity distribution, and population classification were not significant.
CONCLUSION: We found that VT significantly alleviated spasticity and pain in people with PSS and improved motor function, but its effect on gait performance was unclear. However, further studies are needed to validate these findings.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app