Effects and safety of vibration therapy in knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation: an umbrella review of systematic reviews
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a prevalent degenerative joint disease characterized by pain, stiffness, and limited mobility, substantially impairing quality of life. Vibration therapy has gained attention as a promising nonpharmacological intervention for KOA management. However, existing systematic reviews report inconsistent findings regarding its efficacy and safety. This umbrella review synthesizes evidence from published systematic reviews to provide a comprehensive evaluation of vibration therapy in KOA. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases: PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Web of Science, and Embase, with the search completed in January 2025. Eligible systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, examining the effects of vibration therapy in KOA were included. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, assessed full text eligibility, and extracted data on study characteristics, interventions, and clinical outcomes. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool, and reviews were categorized as high, moderate, or low quality. Study overlap was evaluated using the Corrected Covered Area (CCA) method to quantify redundancy. Findings were synthesized qualitatively, focusing on outcomes related to pain intensity, physical function, functional mobility and KOA-related disability. Results: Six systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2022 met the inclusion criteria, of which five included meta-analyses. In total, 22 unique primary trials were cumulatively analysed. The average AMSTAR-2 score was 65.7%, ranging from 56% (moderate) to 81% (high quality). The CCA analysis revealed a high degree of overlap (15%) across the reviews, indicating redundancy in primary studies but also reinforcing consistency in evidence. Commonly reported outcomes included the Visual Analogue Scale, muscle strength, Berg Balance Scale, Six Minute Walk Test, Timed Up and Go test, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The majority of reviews reported favourable effects of vibration therapy on WOMAC physical function and pain intensity, while fewer reviews supported improvements in functional performance and muscle strength. Conclusion: Vibration therapy appears to be a promising adjunct to conventional rehabilitation for KOA, particularly for improving physical function and knee pain. However, inconsistent evidence regarding its effects on functional performance and muscle strength underscores the need for further high-quality research. Future studies should determine optimal vibration parameters and explore underlying mechanisms to establish evidence based clinical guidelines. Review Registration: PROSPEROCRD42024620119.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».