Background: Whole body vibration (WBV) is currently increasing in popularity as a treatment modality for musculoskeletal disorders and improving health-related quality of life. Recent research has shown that WBV can reduce low back pain and improve the functional abilities for patients, however, optimal frequency and duration of vibration for therapeutic use is unclear. This review was conducted to summarize and determine the efficacy of whole body vibration therapy on individuals with non-specific low back pain (NLBP) and evaluated methodological quality of the included studies. Methods: Online literature searches through the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, PEDro, Ovid, EBSCO (Medline) and Scopus were conducted up to December 2019. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of WBV on pain intensity and/or functional ability in individuals with non-specific low back pain (NLBP) were included. Details of the sample characteristics, treatment of the comparison group, WBV parameters and outcome measures were recorded, and methodological quality appraised using the PEDro scale. Results: 7 published RCTs (418 patients) were included in the systematic review. Due to heterogeneity in vibration parameters and prescriptions, and small number of studies, no meta-analysis was performed. Four out of the six included studies using pain as an outcome measure showed that WBV had a beneficial effect on pain compared with the control group, whereas only two trials were considered to be of high methodological quality. Among the six studies which measured functional ability, three studies with good quality reported significant between-group differences in favor of WBV. Conclusions: There is limited evidence suggests that WBV is beneficial for NLBP when compared with other forms of interventions (stability training, classic physiotherapy, routine daily activity). Due to the small sample sizes and statistical heterogeneity, we still cannot draw conclusions that WBV is an effective intervention. Further high-quality studies are needed before clinical recommendations can be provided to support its use in a general population with NLBP and to explore the optimal treatment protocol. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017074775.

Background: Screening for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) is necessary because stroke increases the incidence of and accelerates premorbid cognitive decline. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen is a short, reliable and accurate cognitive screening instrument but is not yet validated in PSCI. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of a Chinese version of the Qmci screen (Qmci-CN) compared with the widely-used Chinese versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-CN) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-CN).Methods: We recruited 34 patients who had recovered from a stroke in rehabilitation unit clinics in 2 university hospitals in China: 11 with post-stroke dementia (PSD), 15 with post-stroke cognitive impairment no dementia (PSCIND), and 8 with normal cognition (NC). Classification was made based on clinician assessment supported by a neuropsychological battery, independent of the screening test scores. The Qmci-CN, MoCA-CN, and MMSE-CN screens were administered randomly by a trained rater, blind to the diagnosis.Results: The mean age of the sample was 63 ± 13 years and 61.8% were male. The Qmci-CN had statistically similar diagnostic accuracy in differentiating PSD from NC, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 compared to 0.99 for the MoCA-CN (p = 0.237) and 0.99 for the MMSE-CN (p = 0.293). The Qmci-CN (AUC 0.91), MoCA-CN (AUC 0.94), and MMSE-CN (AUC 0.79) also had statistically similar accuracy in separating PSD from PSCIND. The MoCA-CN more accurately distinguished between PSCIND and normal cognition than the Qmci-CN (p = 0.015). Compared to the MoCA-CN, the administration times of the Qmci-CN (329s vs. 611s, respectively, p < 0.0001) and MMSE-CN (280 vs. 611s, respectively, p < 0.0001) were significantly shorter.Conclusion: The Qmci-CN is accurate in identifying PSD and separating PSD from PSCIND in patients post-stroke following rehabilitation and is comparable to the widely-used MoCA-CN, albeit with a significantly shorter administration time. The Qmci-CN had relatively poor accuracy in identifying PSCIND from NC and hence may lack accuracy for certain subgroups. However, given the small sample size, the study is under-powered to show superiority of one instrument over another. Further study is needed to confirm these findings in a larger sample size and in other settings (countries and languages).

BACKGROUND: Vibration exercise has been investigated to enhance muscle activation, however, the effect of different amplitude vibratory exercises on cardiovascular stress is less understood. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to explore the acute effect of shoulder vibratory exercises with different postures and amplitudes on the cardiovascular response in healthy adults. METHODS: Using a repeated measures randomized design, 36 subjects performed three different sessions with FLEXI-BAR exercise (FBE): (1) zero-amplitude, (2) small-amplitude, (3) large-amplitude. Each session included three different shoulder positions: 45-, 90- and 180-degree flexion. Heart rate variability (HRV), heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were monitored continuously, while systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and rate-pressure product (RPP) were measured before and after each exercise session. RESULTS: Compared with zero-amplitude, both small- and large-amplitude FBE protocols induced higher SBP. By contrast, DBP decreased with small- and large-amplitude. The RPP immediately after the exercise session were higher than at baseline. For high frequency, low frequency of HRV and HR there was a main effect of amplitude. CONCLUSION: Small- and large-amplitude FBE increased significantly SBP, RPE, HRV, HR and induced lower DBP, but the changes were modest, suggesting that FBE impose no extra threats to cardiovascular stress.

BACKGROUND: Based on electromyography measurements, shoulder vibratory exercises efficiently stimulate shoulder muscles activity. Yet very few studies have supported that shoulder vibratory exercises increased shoulder muscles strength and function, and the noninferiority compared with conventional elastic resistance exercises remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effect of vibratory exercises versus conventional elastic resistance exercises with elastic bands on shoulder external rotation muscles strength and functional performance in young adults. METHODS: 26 young adults (7 males and 19 females, with age 23.89 ± 3.02) were recruited and randomly allocated to shoulder vibratory exercises with FLEXI-BAR (FLEXI-BAR group) or conventional resistance exercises with elastic band (TheraBand group) for 3 times/week, 4 weeks totally. Shoulder external rotator muscles strength test and Underkofler softball distance throw test (USDTT) were performed before and after the training period. RESULTS: After 4 weeks training, shoulder external rotator muscles strength increased 22.25 ± 15.06 N (P= 0.004, effect size = 1.48) within FLEXI-BAR group and 22.81 ± 14.94 N (P= 0.007, effect size = 1.53) within TheraBand group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in the three muscle strength tests (P> 0.65). Regarding shoulder function, FLEXI-BAR exercises increased the throw distance 0.81 ± 0.92 meters in USDTT (P= 0.041, effect size = 0.88) while TheraBand exercise did not (P= 0.284), yet there was no statistically significant between group effects (P= 0.608). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that shoulder vibratory exercises can improve shoulder muscles strength in young adults and can be a useful alternative to the conventional elastic resistance exercises to improve the shoulder muscles strength and function. This provides therapists with more options in terms of choosing training equipment for rehabilitation programs.