Background
Methods
Data sources and searches
Systematic search
-
Population: elderly, aged, dwelling home, nursing home, human research.
-
Intervention: Whole Body Vibration, WBV, noise, random vibration, RCT.
-
Comparator: WBV against control intervention (non-exercise or exercise on a level too low to effect on muscle [29]), WBV against conventional strength training intervention.
-
Outcome: strength, maximal voluntary contraction, power, rate of force development, performance, falls. Our search terms are detailed in Additional file 1.
Study selection
Data extraction
Methodological quality assessment of studies
Data synthesis and analysis
-
IMVC: 1. isometric knee extension, 2. isometric hip extension, 3. isometric leg press; DS: 1. dynamic leg press, 2. dynamic knee extension (lowest speed), 3. dynamic hip extension; Power: 1. leg press, 2. knee extension; RFD: 1. counter movement jump, 2. squat jump, 3. leg press,; FS: 1. chair rise time, 2. chair rise repetition, 3. chair rise power, 4. stair climb, 5. wall squat. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to assess the effects of WBV on IMVC, DS, power, RFD and FS in Go-Go, Slow-Go and No-Go.
Results
Study selection
Study characteristics
Study | Participants (N, sex distribution); mean age (± SD) | Protocol exercise | Outcome measures | Within GE | Between GE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(yes/no) | (yes/no) | ||||
Vertical sinusoidal vibration | |||||
Amaral et al. [78] | WBV: 9 ♀; 76.6 (±11.8) | WBV: isometric squat | FS: CR over 30 s | No | No |
Con: 9 ♀; 78.6 (±10.4) | Con: daily activities routines | ||||
Álvarez- Barbosa et al. [62] | WBV: 15, 12 ♀; 84.0 (±3.0) | WBV: dynamic exercise lunge, squat, calf raises, left and right pivot in a front and lateral position, step up and down. | FS: CR over 30 s | Yes | Yes |
Con: 15, 11 ♀; 86.0 (±7.5) | Con: no change lifestyle | ||||
Bautmans et al. [34] | WBV: 10, 8 ♀; 76.6 (±11.8) | WBV: static position exercises (lunge squats, squats, deep squats, wide stance squats, calves, calves deep) druing WBV | DS: (N) | Yes | NO |
Power: (W), work (J) | |||||
Sham: 11, 6 ♀; 78.6 (±10.4) | RFD: (N/s) at 40 and 60 cm/s | ||||
Beck et al. [35] | WBV: 15 ♀; 68.5 (±8.6) | Pos: full extension | FS: wall squat with dominant leg and non dominant leg & CR over five repetitions (s) | Yes | No |
Con: 15 ♀; 74.2 (±8.1) | Con: no vibration | ||||
Bogaerts et al. [37] | WBV: 25 ♂; 66.9 (±0.7) | WBV: squat, deep squat, wide stance squat, toesstand, toes-stand deep, one-legged squat, and lunge. | IMVC: knee extension (Nm) | Yes | Yes |
Ex: 25 ♂; 67.4 (±0.9) | |||||
Con: 32 ♂; 68.6 (±1.0) | Ex: cardio exercise, strength and balance training, flexibility exercise | RFD: CMJ (cm) on a contact mat. | |||
Con: no change lifestyle | |||||
Bogaerts et al. [38] | WBV: 70; 66.8 | WBV: exercises for upper and lower body | IMVC: knee extension (Nm) | Yes | No |
Ex: 49: 66.8 | Ex: cardio exercise, strength and balance training, flexibility exercise | ||||
Con: 61; 67.8 (ratio ♂:♀ = 1.5:1 for the total sample) | Con: no change life style | ||||
Boegarts [36] | WBV 1: 26 ♀; 80.3 (±5.3) | WBV: squat, deep squat, wide stance squat, toes stand and one legged squat | Physiological Profile Assessment [76]: | Yes | No |
WBV 2: 28 ♀; 79.8 (±5.3) | Con 1 & 2: no change life style | IMVC: knee extension (kg) | |||
Con 1: 29 ♀; 78.7 (±5.6) | |||||
Con 2: 28 ♀; 79.6 (±5.2) | |||||
Corrie et al. [65] | WBV: 21, 13 ♀; 81.9 (±5.7) | WBV: standing position, with bent knees and Otago Exercise programm | Power: (W/kg body weight) leg press | Yes (power & CR) | Yes (power) |
Sham: 20, 16 ♀; 79.1 (±7.8) | Sham: Otago Exercise program which consisted of 6 weekly visits | RFD: CMJ (N/kg body weight | |||
FS: CR over five repetitions | |||||
Gomez-Cabello [42] | WBV: 24 | WBV: squat position | Senior Fitness Test battery and Eurofit Testing Battery [77]: | Yes | No |
Con: 25 (20 ♂, 29 ♀) | Con: no change life style | FS: CR over 30 s (repetition) | |||
Kemmler et al. [44] | WBV: 50 ♀; 68.8 (±3.6) | WBV: static and dynamic exercise (toe stand, squat) | IMVC: leg press (N) | Yes | Yes |
Ex: 50 ♀; 68.6 (±3.0) | Ex: static and dynamic exercise (toe stand, squat) without vibration | Power: leg press (W/kg) | |||
Con: 51 ♀; 68.1 (±2.7) | Con: exercise and relaxation program once a week (30× 60 min) | RFD: leg press (N/ms) & Squat jump (jump height, cm) | |||
Kennis et al. [45] | WBV: 23 ♂ | WBV: static and dynamic squat, deep squat, wide stance squat, 1-legged squat, lunge, toes-stand, toes-stand deep, moving heels. | IMVC: at 120° knee extension (Nm) | Yes | No |
Ex: 20 ♂ | |||||
Con: 29 ♂ | Ex: 60–90 min aerobic, resistance, balance, and flexibility exercises | DS: concentric dynamic knee extension (Nm) at a movement velocity at 120°/s. | |||
Con: no change life style | RFD: counter movement jump (high, cm) | ||||
Klarner et al. [46] | WBV: 36 ♀; 68.1 (±4.0) | WBV: dynamic exercises | IMVC: with leg press (N) | Yes | Yes |
Con: 36 ♀; 67.6 (±4.13) | Con: 1/w low gymnastic exercise & relaxation exercise | RFD: with Counter movement jump (CMJ, jump height, cm) | |||
Lachance [47] | WBV: 26; 70.4 (±7.7) | WBV: static squats (60°), lunges (60°) and heel raises. | FS: CR over 30 s | Yes | No |
Ex: 29; 75.9 (±7.2) | Ex: static squats (60°), lunges (60°) heel raises, bicep curls, tricep extensions, | ||||
(33 ♂, 22 ♀) | Exercises were progressive in nature by safely increasing the number of repetitions completed and/or weight of the dumbbells. | ||||
Leung et al. [66] | WBV: 280 ♀; 74.2 (±7.0) | WBV: standing upright without knee banding | IMVC: knee extensor (kg) | Yes | Yes |
Con: 316 ♀; 71.0 (±7.0) | Non: no change life style | ||||
Machado et al. [48] | WBV: 13 ♀; 79.3 (±7.3) | WBV: static and dynamic exercise (half-squat (120–130°), deep squat (knee angle 90°), a wide-stance squat and calves. | IMVC: leg extensor (N) | Yes | Yes |
Con: 13 ♀; 76.2 (±8.4) | Con: no change life style | Power: output at three relatives loads: 20, 40, 60 % of the IMVC. | |||
Mikhael et al. [49] | WBV1: 6, 4 ♀; 63.3 (±7.6) | WBV: WBV1 with flexed knees at 20° and WBV 2 with extended knees. | DS: one repetition maximum (1RM) leg press (N), relative strength (kg/kg), leg press strength (kg) | Yes | Yes |
WBV2: 5, 3 ♀; 69.0 (±7.6) | Sham: flexed knees at 20° without vibration | Power: (W) and velocity (cm/s) were measured at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 % of current 1RM. | |||
Sham: 8, 4 ♀; 62.3 (±8.8) | FS : CR over 30 s | ||||
Roelants et al. [53] | WBV: 30 ♀; 64.6 (±0.7) | WBV: high squat (120° and 130°, deep squat (90°), wide-stance squat and lunge. | IMVC: (0°/s) torque (Nm) of knee extensor | Yes | No |
Ex: 30 ♀; 63.9 (±0.8) | Ex: resistance exercise | DS: dynamic extension-flexion movements (torque: N/m) between 90 and 160° at a velocity of 50, 100 and 150°/s. | |||
Con: 29 ♀; 64.2 (±0.6) | Con: no change life style | RFD: jump height (mm) on a contact mat | |||
Sitjà-Rabert et al. [64] | WBV: 59; 64.6 (±0.7) | WBV: static/dynamic exercises. | FS: CR over five repetitions | Yes | No |
Ex: 58; 63.9 (±0.8) | Ex: static and dynamic exercise | ||||
(Total sample 67 % ♀) | |||||
Verschueren et al. [58] | WBV: 25 ♀; 64.6 (±3.3) | WBV: static and dynamic knee-extensor exercises like squat, deep squat, wide-stance squat, one-legged squat and lunge. | IMVC: knee-extension | Yes | Yes |
Ex: 22 ♀; 63.9 (±3.8) | Ex: warm-up, resistance training knee-extensor on a leg extension and a leg press machine. Designed to the guideline of the American College of Sports Medicine | DS: isokinetic extension-flexion movements for maximal DS (peak torque N/m) at a velocity of 100°/s between of 90 and 160° joint angle. | |||
Con: 24 ♀; 64.2 (±3.1) | Con: no change life style | ||||
Verschueren et al. [57] | WBV: 28 ♀; 79.8 (±5.3) | WBV: static and dynamic knee-extensor exercises like squat, deep squat, wide-stance squat, one-legged squat and toe-stance. | IMVC: Knee-extension (Nm) | Yes | No |
Con: 28 ♀; 79.6 (±5.2) | Con: no change in life style | DS: Knee-extension (Nm). | |||
Sidealternating sinusoidal vibration | |||||
Beck et al. [35] | WBV: 17 ♀; 68.9 (±70) | Pos: static with slightly bended knees | FS: wall squat dominant leg (DL) and non dominant leg (NDL) & CR over five repetitions (s) | Yes = | No |
Con: 15 ♀; 74.2 (±8.1) | Con: no vibration | ||||
Calder et al. [39] | N: 41, 30 ♀; 80.1 | WBV: stand with slightly bended knees (35° flexion) & Physiotherapy | FS: CR | Yes | No |
Con: Physiotherapy | |||||
Corrie et al. [65] | WBV: 21, 16 ♀; 81.9 (±5.7) | WBV: standing position, with bent knees and Otago Exercise | Power: (W/kg body weight) leg press | No | No |
Sham: 20, 8 ♀; 79.1 (±7.8) | Sham: Otago Exercise program which consisted of 6 weekly visits | RFD: CMJ (N/kg body weight | |||
FS: CR over five repetitions | |||||
Furness and Maschette [40] | WBV1: 18 (1/week) | WBV: static with 70 knee flexion | FS: CR | Yes (for WBV2 and WBV3) | No |
WBV2: 18 (2/week) | Con: no vibration | ||||
WBV3: 19 (3/week) | |||||
Age: 72 (±8) | |||||
Con: 18 (0/wk) | |||||
(Total sample 38 ♂, 35 ♀) | |||||
Furness et al. [41] | WBV: 19 | WBV: static with 70° Kneeflexion | FS: CR | Yes | No |
Con: 18 | Con: no exercise | ||||
(Total sample 16 ♂, 21 ♀) | |||||
Iwamoto et al. [43] | WBV: 26 ♀; 72.4 (±8.1) | WBV: stands with bended knee and hips | FS: CR over 5 times | Yes | No |
Con: 26 ♀; 76.0 (±7.4) | Con. No exercise | ||||
Klarner et al. [40] | WBV: 36 ♀; 67.9 (±3.78) | WBV: dynamic exercises | IMVC: Hip & Knee extension (N) | Yes | Yes |
Con: 36 ♀; 67.6 (±4.13) | Con: 1/w low gymnastic exercise & relaxation exercise | RFD: CMJ (jump height, cm) | |||
Ochi et al. [67] | WBV: 10 ♀; 80.9 (±2.8) | WBV: dynamic exercises | IMVC: Quadiceps muscle dominant leg | Yes | No |
Ex: 10 ♀; 80.2 (±3.3) | Con: dynamic exercise: half squat, heel rise, toe up. | ||||
Raimundo et al. [50] | WBV: 14 ♀; 66 (±6) | WBV: static with knee angle 120° | DS: dynamic maximal unilateral strength at 60 and 300 °/s for concentric and eccentric at 60 °/s (Peak torque (Nm/kg). | Yes | Yes |
Ex: 13 ♀; 66 (±4) | Ex: walk-based-programme | Power (W). | |||
Walking over 60 m with two sets with 70–75 % of their maximal heart rate. | RFD: mixed counter movement jump on | ||||
Ergo Jump Platform (Bosco System, Italy) | |||||
FS: CR over three repetitions. | |||||
Rees et al. [51] | WBV: 15; 74.3 (±5.0) | WBV: static squats over 4 weeks, than dynamic squats and calf raises over 4 weeks. | DS: angular velocity 60°/s for knee and hip and the angle joint was tested at 30 °/s. | Yes | Yes |
Ex: 13; 73.1 (±4.1) | Ex: static squats over 4 weeks, than dynamic squats and calf raises over 4 weeks, without vibration. | FS: CR over five repetition | |||
Con: 15; 73.1 (±4.6) | |||||
(Total sample 23 ♂, 20 ♀) | |||||
Rees et al. [52] | WBV: 15; 74.3 (±5.0) | Con: only walking WBV: static and dynamic exercise (squats, calf raises) | DS: as torque (Nm/kg) | Yes | No |
Ex: 13; 73.1 (±4.1) | Ex: same exercise without vibration | maximum isokinetic power (W/kg) angular velocity for the hip and knee was 60°/s, with the ankle joint tested at 30°/s. | |||
(No sex distribution information) | |||||
Russo et al. [55] | WBV: 17 ♀ | WBV: static, knees slightly flexed | DS: strength (N), acceleration of the centre of gravity (COG) was calculated as the ratio of force (N) and body mass (kg). | Yes | No |
Age: 60.7 (±6.1) | Con: no change in life style | RFD: starting from a standstill, jumped as high as possible and landed (W). | |||
Con: 16 ♀ | |||||
Age: 61.4 (±7.3) | |||||
Sievänen et al. [61] | WBV: 8, 7 ♀ | WBV: dynamic exercise such as slight squatting, toe raises, lateral weigth transfer. | FS: SPPB | Yes | NO |
Age: 84.4 (±6.3) | Ex: light squatting, toe raises or weight transfer forward and lateral weight transfer on WBV. | ||||
Sham: 7, 5 ♀ | |||||
Age: 83.6 (±8.9) | |||||
Stolzenberg et al. [56] | WBV: 30 ♀; 67.5 (±3.8) | WBV: static standing with slightly bent knees and hips, continuous squatting from erect standing to 90° knee flexion or static stance in 90° knee flexion | Power: CMJ (W/kg) | Yes | No |
Con: 30 ♀; 65.5 (±4.3) | Con: balance exercise like Romberg, tandem and single-leg stance. | RFD: CMJ jump height (cm) | |||
FS: 1-leg hopping and CR over five repetitions | |||||
von Stengel et al. [59] | WBV: 50♀; 68.8 (±3.6) | WBV: heel rise, one-legged deep squat, and leg abduction | MVC: leg press (N) | Yes | Yes |
Ex: 50 ♀; 68.6 (±3.0) | Ex: heel rise, one-legged deep squat, and leg abduction without vibration | RFD: CMJ (W/Kg) | |||
Con: 51 ♀; 68.1 (±2.7) | Con: exercise and relaxation program once a week in blocks of 10 weeks with breaks | ||||
Zhang et al. [60] | WBV: 19, 2 ♀; 85.8 (±3.6) | WBV: different to their function. Who could stand: partial squat position with slight hip, knee and ankle joint flexion. Who could not stand independently, same position, but were allowed to hold the support bar with their hands. | IMVC: M. quadriceps | Yes | Yes |
Con: 18, 3 ♀; 84.7 (±3.7) | Ex: usual care, physical therapy (ultrasound therapy, electrical stimulation, etc.) and routine exercises, such as pedalling training with regular dosage and time of treatments. | FS: CR over 30 s | |||
Stochastic resonance vibration | |||||
Kessler et al. [23] | WBV: 10, 8 ♀; 77 (±7.7) | static (e.g. normal stance, semi-tandem, one leg stance) and dynamic standing (e.g. squat) | IMVC: knee-extension (N) | Yes | Yes |
Sham:10, 8 ♀; 81 (±5.7) | RFD: knee-extension (N/s) | ||||
FS: SPPB | |||||
Rogan et al. [54] | WBV: 10; 77 (±7.7) | static standing with slightly bent knees and hips | FS: CR (1 time) | Yes | No |
Sham:10; 81 (±5.7) | |||||
(No sex distribution information) | |||||
Rogan et al. [20] | WBV: 5; 77 (±7.7) | static standing with slightly bent knees and hips | IMVC: knee-extension (N) | Yes | No |
Sham: 4; 81 (±5.7) | RFD: knee-extensor (N/s) | ||||
(Total sample 4 ♂, 5 ♀) | FS: SPPB |
Study | Duration/(Session/per week) | Amplitude | Frequency | Sets, Duration, Rest between set |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vertically sinusoidal vibration | ||||
Amaral et al. [78] | 12 weeks/(3/week) | 2–4 mm | 30–40Hz | 3 sets × 30–45 s. |
Álvarez- Barbosa et al. [62] | 8 weeks/(3/week) | 4 mm | F: 30–35Hz | 6–12 sets, 12–17 min total time, 45 s rest between set |
Bautmans et al. [34] | 6 weeks/(3/week) | 2–5 mm | 30–40 Hz | 4 sets × 30–60 s, 30–60 s rest between set |
Beck et al. [35] | 32 weeks/(2/week) | 0.3 g | 30 Hz | 15 min (1 session), no rest |
Bogaerts et al. [37] | 47 weeks/(3/week) | 2.5–5 mm | 30–40 Hz | 4 sets sets × 30 s – 15 × 30 s, 15–30 s rest between set |
Bogaerts et al. [38] | 48 weeks mo/(3/week) | NA | NA | NA |
Boegarts [36] | 24 weeks/(3/week) | 1.6–2.2 g | 30–40 Hz | 3 sets × 15–60 s, 60–5 s rest between set |
Corrie et al. [65] | 12 weeks/(3/week) | 1.3 mm | 30 Hz | 3 to 6 sets × 20 to 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Gomez-Cabello [42] | 44 weeks mo/(3/week) | 2 mm | 40 Hz | 10 sets × 45 s, 60 s rest between set |
Kemmler et al. [44] | 88 weeks/(2/week) | NA | 25–35 Hz | NA |
Kennis et al. [45] | 2.5–5 mm | 30–40 Hz | 4 sets × 30 s till 15 sets × 30 s, 15–30 s rest between set | |
Klarner et al. [46] | 48 weeks mo/(3/week) | 35 Hz | 7 sets × 90 s, 40 s rest between set | |
Lachance [47] | 8 weeks/(2/week) | 2 mm | 35 Hz | NA |
Leung et al. [66] | 72 weeks mo/(5/week) | 2 mm | 35 Hz | 20 min, rest (NA) |
Machado et al. [48] | 10 week/(3–5/week) | 2–4 mm | 20–40 Hz | 3–8 sets × 30–60 s, rest (NA) |
Mikhael et al. [49] | 12 weeks/(3/week) | 1 mm | 12 Hz | 10 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Roelants et al. [53] | 24 weeks/(3/week) | 2.5–5 mm | 35–40 Hz | 1–3 sets × 30–60 s of one exercise, 60 to 5 s rest between set |
Sitjà-Rabert et al. [64] | 6 weeks/(3/week) | 2–4 mm | 30–35 Hz | 3 sets × 30–60 s of one exercise, 60 to 5 s rest between set |
Verschueren et al. [58] | 24 weeks/(3/week) | 1.7–2.5 mm | 35–40 Hz | NA |
Verschueren et al. [57] | 18 weeks/(3/week) | 1.6–2.2 g | 30–40 Hz | 15–60 s × Pos. exercise, 60 s till 5 min rest between exercises |
Sidealternating sinusoidal vibration | ||||
Beck et al. [35] | 32 weeks/(2/week) | 2 mm | 12.5 Hz | 2 sets × 3 min, 60 s rest between set |
Calder et al. [39] | 6 weeks | 2 mm | 20 Hz | 4 sets × 75 s, 90 s rest between set |
Corrie et al. [65] | 12 weeks/(3/week) | 2.9 mm | 30 Hz | 3 to 6 sets × 20 to 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Furness and Maschette [40] | 6 weeks | 0.05 mm | 15–25 Hz | 5 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Furness et al. [41] | 6 weeks/(3/week) | 1 mm | 15–25 Hz | 5 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between sets |
Iwamoto et al. [43] | 18 weeks/(2/week) | NA | 20 Hz | 4 min, NA rest |
Klarner et al. [40] | 48 weeks/(3/week) | 3–7 mm | 12,5 Hz | 7 sets × 90 s, 40 s rest between set |
Ochi et al. [67] | 12 weeks/(3/week) | 12 mm | 2,5 Hz | 180 s, no rest |
Raimundo et al. [50] | 32 weeks/(3/week) | 6 mm | 20–30 Hz | 3 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Rees et al. [51] | 8 weeks/(3/week) | 5–8 mm | 26 Hz | 6 sets × 45 up to 60 s, 5 × 45 up to 80 s rest between set |
Rees et al. [52] | 8 weeks/(3/week) | 5–8 mm | 26 Hz | 6 sets × 45–80 s, 45–80 s rest between set |
Russo et al. [55] | 24 weeks/(2/week) | NA | 12–28 Hz | 3 sets × 60–120 s, 60 s rest between set |
Sievänen et al. [61] | 10 week/(2/week) | 2–8 mm | 12 and 18 Hz | 1–5 sets × 60–120 s, 60 s rest between set |
Stolzenberg et al. [56] | 36 weeks/(2/week) | NA | 22–26 Hz | 60–90 s, rest (NA) |
von Stengel et al. [59] | 74 weeks/(2weeks) | 1.7–2 mm | 25–35 Hz | 6 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Zhang et al. [60] | 8 weeks/(3–5/week) | 1–3 mm | 25–35 Hz | 4–5 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Stochastic resonance vibration | ||||
Kessler et al. [23] | 4 weeks/(3/week) | – | 3–6 Hz (Noise 4) | 5 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Rogan et al. [54] | 4 weeks/(3/week) | – | 5 Hz (Noise 4) | 5 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Rogan et al. [20] | Immediately (acute effects) | 6 Hz (Noise 4) | 5 sets × 60 s, 60 s rest between set |
Study methodological quality
Meta-analysis
Isometric maximal voluntary contraction: WBV vs. non-exercise control group
Go-Go
Slow-Go
No-Go
Isometric maximal voluntary contraction: WBV vs. exercise group
Go-Go
Slow-Go
No-Go
Dynamic strength: WBV vs. non-exercise control
Go-Go
Slow-Go
Dynamic strength: WBV vs. conventional exercise
Go-Go
Slow-Go
Power: WBV vs. non-exercise control
Go-Go
Slow-Go
Power: WBV vs. conventional exercise
Go-Go
Slow-Go
Rate of force development: WBV vs. non-exercise control
Go-Go
Slow-Go
Rate of force development: WBV vs. conventional exercise
Go-Go
Slow-Go
Functional strength: WBV vs. non-exercise control
Go-Go
Slow-Go
No-Go
Functional strength: WBV vs. conventional exercise
Go-Go
Slow-Go
No-Go
Go-Go | Slow-Go | No-Go | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VS-WBV | VS-WBV | ||||
1 | Amaral et al. [78] (SA) FS | 1 | Alvarez et al. [62] FS | ||
2 | Beck et al. [35] FS | 2 | Bautmans [34] DS, Power, RFD | ||
3 | Boegarts et al. [37] IMVC, RFD | 3 | Boegarts et al. [36] IMVC | ||
4 | Boegarts et al. [38] IMVC | 4 | Corrie et al. [6] Power, FS, RFD | ||
5 | Gomez-Cabello et al. [42] FS | 5 | Sitja-Rabert et al. [68] FS | ||
6 | Kemmler et al. [44] IMVC, Power, | 6 | Verscheuern et al. [57] IMVC, DS | ||
7 | RFD | ||||
8 | Kennis et al. [45] IMVC, DS, RFD | ||||
9 | Klarner et al. [46] IMVC, RFD | ||||
10 | Lachane [47] FS | ||||
11 | Leung et al. [66] IMVC | ||||
12 | Machado et al. [48] MVC, Power | ||||
13 | Mikhael et al. [49] DS, Power, FS | ||||
14 | Roelants et al. [53] IMVC, DS, RFD | ||||
15 | Verscheuren et al. [58] IMVC, DS | ||||
SS-WBV | SS-WBV | SS-WBV | |||
1 | Beck et al. [35] FS | 1 | Calder et al. [39] FS | 1 | Sievänen et al. [61] FS |
2 | Furness and Maschette [40] FS | 2 | Corrie et al. [65] Power, RFD, FS | 2 | Zhang et al. [60] IMVC, FS |
3 | Furness et al. [41] FS | 3 | Ochi et al. [67] IMVC | ||
4 | Iwamoto et al. [43] FS | ||||
5 | Klarner et al. [46] IMVC, RFD | ||||
6 | Raimundo et al. [50] DS, Power, RFD; FS | ||||
7 | Rees et al. [51] DS, FS | ||||
8 | Rees et al. [52] DS, Power | ||||
9 | Russo et al. [55] DS, RFD | ||||
10 | Stolzenberg et al. [56] Power, RFD, FS | ||||
11 | von Stengel et al. [59] IMVC, RFD | ||||
SR-WBV | SR-WBV | ||||
1 | 1 | Rogan et al. [54] FS | 1 | Kessler et al. [23] IMVC, RFD, FS | |
2 | 2 | Rogan et al. [20] IMVC, IRFD, FS | |||
SMD 0.26 (95 % CI 0.15 to 0.63) | SMD of 0.14 (95 % CI −0.04 to 0.33) | SMD of 0.47 (95 % CI 0.16 to 0.78) | |||
I2 48.9 %, p <0.001 | I2 26.6 %, p = 0.121 | I2 0.00 %, p <0.792 |