ArticleSpinal cord series and cases2022
Acceptability and impact on spasticity of a single session of upper extremity vibration in individuals with tetraplegia.
Article in Spinal cord series and cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Focal Muscular Vibration During Intensive Rehabilitation in the Treatment of Spasticity After a Severe Acquired Brain Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A review about muscle focal vibration contribution on spasticity recovery.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Challenges in Translating Regenerative Therapies for Spinal Cord Injury.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designPre-post design; before and after vibration intervention.
objectivesTo explore effect of a focal, self-applied upper extremity (UE) vibration intervention on UE spasticity for individuals with tetraplegia. The secondary objectives were to explore the acceptability and ease of use of this intervention.
settingSpecialty rehabilitation center in Georgia, USA.
methodsEleven participants each completed one session of focal, self-applied vibration to the UEs. UE spasticity was measured using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). UE function was measured using the Box & Block (B&B) test which measures the effectiveness of grasp, transport, and release. These measurements were taken pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention, and 20 min post-intervention. Participants also self-reported the acceptability and usability of the intervention, their perception of change in their spasticity and completed the Qualities of Spasticity Questionnaire.
resultsIn the full group analysis of the spasticity measures, no significant effects were found. Subgroup analysis, however, indicated participants with higher spasticity demonstrated significantly more change on the MAS than the lower spasticity group. Analysis did not reveal any impact of the intervention on UE function as measured by the B&B. Ten out of eleven participants indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that the intervention would be valuable to have at home.
conclusionsParticipants with higher spasticity demonstrated decreased spasticity after focal UE vibration, although there was no clear effect on grasp, transport and release function. Participants were satisfied with the intervention; most were able to use it independently and indicated it would be a valuable home intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.