Author: Collado-Mateo D1, Adsuar JC1, Olivares PR2, Del Pozo-Cruz B3, Parraca JA4, Del Pozo-Cruz J5, Gusi N1.
1Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Caceres, Spain. 2Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Caceres, Spain ; Universidad Autónoma de Chile, 3460000 Talca, Chile. 3Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Caceres, Spain ; Department of Sport and Exercise Science, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. 4Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Caceres, Spain ; Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Évora, 7005-399 Évora, Portugal. 5Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Caceres, Spain ; Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Seville, 41013 Seville, Spain.
Conference/Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med.
Date published: 2015
Other: Volume ID: 2015 , Pages: 719082 , Special Notes: doi: 10.1155/2015/719082. , Word Count: 179
Objective. To review the literature on the effects of whole-body vibration therapy in patients with fibromyalgia. Design. Systematic literature review. Patients. Patients with fibromyalgia. Methods. An electronic search of the literature in four medical databases was performed to identify studies on whole-body vibration therapy that were published up to the 15th of January 2015. Results. Eight articles satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were analysed. According to the Dutch CBO guidelines, all selected trials had a B level of evidence. The main outcomes that were measured were balance, fatigue, disability index, health-related quality of life, and pain. Whole-body vibration appeared to improve the outcomes, especially balance and disability index. Conclusion. Whole-body vibration could be an adequate treatment for fibromyalgia as a main therapy or added to a physical exercise programme as it could improve balance, disability index, health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain. However, this conclusion must be treated with caution because the paucity of trials and the marked differences between existing trials in terms of protocol, intervention, and measurement tools hampered the comparison of the trials.