SynthesisBMJ open2025
Effectiveness of focal muscle vibrations in improving sensorimotor performance, mobility and strength in spinal cord injury population: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eight weeks of focal muscle vibration shows improvements in muscle co-ordination and co-contraction in cerebral palsy children: a randomized control trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Focal Muscular Vibration During Intensive Rehabilitation in the Treatment of Spasticity After a Severe Acquired Brain Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSpinal cord injury (SCI) results in debilitating sensory, functional deficits and paralysis requiring neurorehabilitation solutions. In this regard, focal muscle vibration (FMV) is an emerging neuro-rehabilitation tool that uses mechanical vibration on muscles/tendons to stimulate underlying nerves and consequently modulate neural pathways. We conducted a systematic review to understand the exact effectiveness of FMVs on the sensorimotor function and mobility/strength in the SCI population.
designSystematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach. DATA SOURCES: PEDro, Springer, PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched through 15 February 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included studies adhering to the following population-intervention-comparison-outcomes (PICO) elements. POPULATION: SCI, intervention: FMV, comparison: unexposed controls, outcome: either of sensorimotor function or mobility and strength. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) scale. Findings were summarised and a narrative synthesis is provided.
results25 studies were included. 9 studies used FMV in the upper limb and 14 in the lower limb. The analysis includes 427 patients with SCI, with a focus on male, chronic SCI cases and a prevalence of North American studies.
conclusionOur systematic review of 25 studies, with 21 (84%) reporting positive outcomes, suggests that FMV may improve sensory perception, motor function, mobility and strength in individuals with SCIs, with benefits observed in both limbs. However, substantial heterogeneity in FMV parameters, study designs, participant characteristics and the high prevalence of serious/critical risk of bias (13/25 studies, 52%) limit definitive conclusions. Further research with optimised protocols, larger sample sizes and longitudinal designs is needed to confirm efficacy and establish clinical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.