SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Efficacy of vibration therapy on physical function, activity and participation in people with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the effectiveness of vibration therapy (VT) in improving physical function, activity, and participation in people with stroke.
methodsWe searched six databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating VT in people with stroke. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and data were analyzed using RevMan and Stata. The quality of evidence was evaluated with the GRADEpro tool.
resultsThirty-seven RCTs involving 1492 people with stroke were included. VT significantly improved physical function, including motor (SMD = 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-0.73), spasticity (SMD = - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.99 to - 0.29), balance (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI 0.19-0.85), and gait (SMD = - 0.41, 95% CI - 0.66 to - 0.16). Activity was also enhanced (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.35), whereas participation did not show improvement (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI - 0.33 to 0.35). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression revealed that spasticity improvement was superior in people with chronic stroke (SMD = - 0.8, 95% CI - 1.19 to - 0.4). Single-session vibration time ≥ 20 min for gait (SMD = - 0.84, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.32), cumulative vibration time > 5 h for balance (SMD = 0.86, 95% CI 0.30-1.43), and intervention duration ≥ 4 weeks for spasticity (SMD = - 0.5, 95% CI - 0.81 to - 0.2) yielded pronounced improvements.
conclusionsLow to moderate quality evidence suggests that VT effectively enhances physical function and activity in people with stroke, while its impact on participation remains unclear. Moreover, VT produced superior spasticity relief in people with chronic stroke compared to those in acute and subacute phases; single-session vibration time ≥ 20 min for gait, cumulative vibration time > 5 h for balance, and intervention duration ≥ 4 weeks for spasticity were particularly effective.
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.