DadeMatthews · Complementary therapies in medicine 2022 · systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials · n=30 studies

Systematic review and meta-analyses on the effects of whole-body vibration on bone health.

Cited 20 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PubMed 35093509 · doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102811 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of human randomized controlled trials indexed in Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to November 2021. Included trials evaluated commercially available whole-body vibration platforms. Outcomes included bone density mean difference and serum concentrations of bone turnover biomarkers (P1NP, osteocalcin, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and CTX-1). Random-effects models using Hedges' g were used, with moderator analyses assessing health status, age, menopausal status, vibration type, frequency, and duration.

What was found

A meta-analysis of 30 studies showed bone density improvement following whole-body vibration (Hedges' g = 0.11; p = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.00, 0.22). Increases were noted in healthy individuals (Hedges' g = 0.10; p = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.02, 0.17), postmenopausal women (Hedges' g = 0.09; p = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.18), and with side-alternating vibration (Hedges' g = 0.21; p = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.04, 0.37). The abstract reported no significant effect on bone resorption biomarkers (Hedges' g = 0.03; p = 0.74; 95% CI = -0.17, 0.23) or bone formation biomarkers (reported as Hedges' g = 0.22; p = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.05, 0.40).

Why it matters

Whole-body vibration may offer a non-pharmacological adjunct to support bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. However, the magnitude of benefit is modest and clinical relevance to fracture risk is unknown.

Limits

The effect sizes for bone density are very small (Hedges' g around 0.10) with borderline statistical significance in the overall cohort. The abstract contains a reporting inconsistency for bone formation biomarkers (stating no significant effect despite reporting p = 0.01). Total participant numbers, skeletal sites measured, adherence rates, and fracture outcomes are not reported in the abstract.

Cited by