Effects of whole body vibration on pain, stiffness and physical functions in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of whole body vibration for pain, stiffness and physical functions in patients with knee osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and EMBASE (up to October 2014) to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. The outcome measures were pain, stiffness and physical functions. REVIEW METHODS: Two investigators identified eligible studies and extracted data independently. The PEDro score was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the selected studies. Standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) test. RESULTS: A total of five randomized controlled trials involving 170 patients with knee osteoarthritis met the inclusion criteria. Only four studies involving 144 patients were deemed to be good quality trials (PEDro score = 6-7). Meta-analysis revealed that whole body vibration has a significant treatment effect in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index physical function score (SMD = -0.72 points, 95% CI = -1.14 to -0.30, P = 0.0008), 12 weeks whole body vibration improved the 6-minute walk test (SMD 1.15 m, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.80, P = 0.0006) and balance (SMD = -0.78 points, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.16, P = 0.01). Whole body vibration was not associated with a significant reduction in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index pain and stiffness score. CONCLUSION: Eight-week and 12-week whole body vibration is beneficial for improving physical functions in patients with knee osteoarthritis and could be included in rehabilitation programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".