Study | Subjects | Study Design | Mean age | N: gender | Duration of WBV training | Parameters WBV | Parameters Control (CON) | Device | Outcome Measures | Main Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sinusoidal Vertical Vibrations | ||||||||||
Bautmans et al. 2005 [40] | Nursing home residents | RCT | WBV:76.6 CON:78.6 | N = 24: 15♀/9♂ | 6 w | FRQ: 4 × 30-60 s WBV/session 30-60 s rest in between 3 sessions/w F: 30-40 Hz A: 2/5 mm POS: Static exercises while WBV | Static exercises without WBV 3 sessions/w | Power Plate | TUG Tinetti Test | WBV/CON: Significant difference in the improvement between WBV and CON for both balance tests (TUG & Tinetti). |
Beck et al. 2010 [51] | Postmenopausal women | RCT | WBV:68.9 CON:74.2 | N = 47♀ | 8 m | FRQ: 15 min LWBV/1 session no rest 2 sessions/w F: LWBV: 30 Hz A: 0.3 g POS: standing with full extension | No vibration | Juvent | SLS Tandem Walk Test | WBV/CON No improvements of some aspects of postural control |
Bogaerts et al. 2007[42] | Community-dwelling elderly | RCT | WBV: 66.9 FIT: 67.6 CON: 68.6 | N = 220: 106♀/114♂ | 52 w | FRQ: 4 × 30 s-15 × 60 s WBV/session 15-60 s rest in between 3 sessions/w F: 30-40 Hz A: 2.5/5 mm POS: Static/dynamic exercises while WBV (squats, toe-stand etc.) | FIT: 1.5 h cardiovascular, strength, balance, flexibility exercises (running, cycling, strength etc.) 3 sessions/w CON: No change in lifestyle | Power Plate | Sensory Organization Test (SOT) | WBV: Improvement of some aspects of postural control |
Boegarts et al. 2011 [41] | Elderly women | RCT | WBV:80.3, 79.8 CT: 78.7, 79.6 | N:113 113♀ | 6 m | FRQ: 3 × 15 s - 60 s with 60 to 5 s rest between per week F: start 30 and end 40 Hz A: 1.6 - 2.2 g POS: exercises squat, deep squat, wide stance squat, toes stand, one leg stance | Control: no change in lifestyle | Powerplaate | Static balance on forc, dynamic balance (SOT), TUG, | WBV: Sway velocity decrease significantly with open and closed eyes in static balance. No changes in dynamic balance. TUG significantly decrease in both groups |
Carlucci et al. 2010 [39] | Elderly women | Quasi RCT | WBV: 71.8 CON: 71.4 | N = 36♀ | One session | FRQ: 6 min 3, 5 min rest F: 35 Hz POS: Static and dynamic knee-extensor exercises. | Static and dynamic knee-extensor exercises without vibration. | Well-net Vibe Revolution | Posturography | WBV: No significant improvement in static balance after WBV. |
Johnson et al. 2010 [43] | Patients after total knee arthroplasty [57] | Quasi RCT | WBV:67 CON:68.5 | N = 16 6♀/10♂ | 4 w | FRQ: began at 2 min (1 × 30 s) and progressed to 18 min (6 exercises, 3 × 30 s) 3 sessions/4 F: 35 Hz A: 2 mm (1 + 2 w) 2- 5 mm (3 w) 5 mm (4 w) POS: strengthening exercises on a WBV platform | Traditional progressive resistive exercise | Power Plate | TUG | WBV: Significant improvement was 31% TPRE: Significant improvement was 32% |
Mikhael et al. 2010 [44] | elderly | RCT | WBV FK: 63.3 WBV LK: 69 Sham: 62.3 | N = 19 11♀/8♂ | 13 w | Group WBV with flexed knees [58] and Group WBV with locked knees (LK) FRQ: 10 × 60 s WBV/session 60 s rest between 3 sessions/w A: 12 Hz F: 1 mm (peak to peak) POS: Stood on the platform with feed shoulder-width apart, hands by their side | Sham: with flexed knees A: 12 Hz F: 1 mm |  | Balance measured by balance index, was assessed on a force platform | WBV/Sham: No improvement of the balance index |
Verschueren et al. 2004 [18] | Postmenopausal women | RCT | WBV: 64.6 RES: 63.9 CON: 64.2 | N = 70: 70♀ | 24 w | FRQ: WBV overload principle: Varying number/durations of vibration bouts and rests ≤ 30 min/session 3 sessions/w F: 35-40 Hz A: 1.7/2.5 mm POS: Static/dynamic knee-extensor exercises while WBV (Squats, lunge etc.) | RES: Knee-extensor exercises on leg-extension and leg-press according to overload principle: 60 min/session 3 sessions/w CON: Maintain actual level of physical activity, no training | Power Plate | Bertec® force plate measuring body sway under static and dynamic (arm abduction or flexion while standing) conditions | WBV: Significant reduced body sway under dynamic conditions after WBV (p < 0.05). Between group difference for change over time only for the dynamic conditions compared to CON (p = 0.003/p = 0.03). CON: No change over time |
Side-alternating Vibration | ||||||||||
Beck et al. 2010 [51] | Postmeno- pausal women | RCT | HWBV:68.5 CON:74.2 | N = 47♀ | 8 m | FRQ: 2 × 3 min HWBV/session 60 s rest in between 2 sessions/w F:12.5 Hz A: ~ 2 mm POS: standing with slightly bended knee | No vibration | Galileo | SLS Tandem Walk Test | WBV/CON No improvements of some aspects of postural control |
Bruyere et al, 2005 [45] | Nursing home residents | RCT | WBV: 84.5 CON: 78.9 | N = 42: 31♀/11♂ | 6 w | FRQ: 4 × 60 s/session 3 sessions/w 90 s rest in between F: 10/26 Hz A: 3/7 mm POS: Static standing while WBV + Additional physical therapy: (gait, balance, ADL, strength) | Physical therapy (gait, balance, ADL, strength) 3 sessions/w | Galileo | TUG Tinetti Test: Balance score | WBV: Significant greater improvement in both balance tests compared to CON. |
Cheung et al. 2007 [46] | Elderly healthy women | RCT | WBV: 72.5 CON: 72.0 | N = 69♀ | 12 w | FRQ: 3 min/session 3 sessions/w F: 20 Hz A: 0-5.3 mm (model specifications) POS: Static standing while WBV | Remain sedentary Normal daily life throughout the whole study | Galileo | Basic Balance Master system: Limits of stability of COP (Movement velocity/maximum excursion/directional control) Functional Reach Test | WBV: Significant difference in change compared to CON on Basic Balance Master system Tendency to greater improvement compared to CON in Functional Reach |
Furness et al. 2009 [47] | Elederly, community-dwelling adults | RCT | WBV: 72 ± 8 | N = 73 38♀/35♂ | 6 w | FRQ: 5 × 60 s WBV/session 60 s rest in between Group A: 1 session/w Group B: 2 sessions/w Group C: 3 sessions/w F: 15-25 Hz A: 0.5 mm POS: Static standing while WBV with holding on handlebars (110° knee extension) | No WBV |  | Tinetti-Test TUG | Group B+C: Significant improvement TUG and Tinetti Test. Group C significantly greater improvements for the TUG and Tinetti Test than group B. |
Furness et al. 2010 [48] | Elederly, community-dwelling adults | RCT | 69 ± 8 | N = 37 21♀/16♂ | 6 w | FRQ: 5 × 60 s WBV/session 60 s rest in between F: 15 Hz for first 6 session F: 20 Hz for 6 session F: 25 HZ for last 6 session A: 1 mm POS: Static standing while WBV with holding on handlebars (70° knee flexion) | No WBV and no additional form of exercise |  | TUG | WBV elicited beneficial adaptions in functional performance |
Gusi et al. 2006 [21] | Postmenopausal women, untrained | RCT | WBV: 66 CON: 66 | N = 28♀ | 32 w | FRQ: 3-6 × 60 s WBV/session 60 s rest in between 3 sessions/w F: 12,6 Hz A: 3 mm POS: Static standing while WBV (60° knee flexion) | 55 min walking + 5 min stretching | Galileo | Blind Flamingo Test | WBV Improved balance (29%) CONt Balance did not improve |
Rees et al. 2007 [49] | Healthy elderly persons | RCT | WBV: 74.3 EX: 73.1 CON: 73.1 | N = 43: 20♀/23♂ | 8 w | FRQ: 6 × 45-80 s WBV/session 45-80 s rest in between 3 sessions/w F: 26 Hz A: 5-8 mm POS: Static/dynamic exercises while WBV (squats, calf raises etc.) + ≥ 3x/w low intensity exercise (walking) | EX: Static and dynamic exercises (squats, calf raises etc.) without WBV 3 sessions/w + ≥ 3x/w low intensity exercise (walking) CON: ≥ 3x/w low intensity exercise (walking) | Galileo | Timed-Up-and Go (TUG) Sit-to-Stand (STS) | WBV: Significant difference in amount of change in TUG compared to CON WBV/EX: Significant difference in amount of change in STS compared to CON |
Rees et al.2009 [50] | Healthy elderly persons | RCT | WBV: 74.3 EX: 73.1 CON: 73.1 | N = 43: 21♀/24♂ | 8 w | FRQ: 6 × 45-80 s WBV/session 45-80 s rest in between 3 sessions/w F: 26 Hz A: 5-8 mm POS: Static/dynamic exercises while WBV (squats, calf raises etc.) + ≥ 3x/w low intensity exercise (walking) | EX: Static and dynamic exercises (squats, calf raises etc.) without WBV 3 sessions/w + ≥ 3x/w low intensity exercise (walking) CON: ≥ 3x/w low intensity exercise (walking) | Galileo | One-legged postural steadiness (OLPS) Timed-Up-and Go (TUG) | WBV: revealed significant improvements for the VIB group compared to the EX and CON groups |