SynthesisPloS one2026
Bone physiological adaptations to whole-body vibration in mouse models: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole-body vibration (WBV) is known to mechanically stimulate bone tissue, modulating its turnover and microarchitecture. Our systematic review aimed to collect the available evidence on the effects of WBV in mouse models, comparing the different experimental protocols and results obtained. A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Experimental studies investigating the effects of WBV on healthy mice of different age groups, models of osteoporosis or fracture healing, and other models of bone loss were included. Methodological quality was assessed using SYRCLE's RoB tool to analyze the reliability of the results and the risk of bias and the adapted GRADE approach to determine the overall level of certainty of the evidence. Twenty-nine studies were included, of which 10 were on healthy mice, 9 on osteoporotic or fracture healing models, and 10 on other models of bone loss. Overall, WBV improved bone formation, mineral density, and trabecular and cortical microarchitecture, although the results were heterogeneous and dependent on frequency, acceleration, duration, and recovery times. In some models, WBV combined with parathyroid hormone (PTH) or oestrogen showed synergistic effects, while in disuse and metabolic models, mechanical vibrations preserved bone mass and reduced osteoclastic activity. WBV represents a potentially useful strategy for modulating bone turnover and improving density and microarchitecture, with effects strongly influenced by protocol parameters and pathophysiological status. Further studies are needed to clarify the mechanisms, optimize protocols, and evaluate the clinical impact in different study populations.
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.