Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38148425›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of biomedical engineering2024

Comparison Between Effects of Galvanic and Vibration-Based Vestibular Stimulation on Postural Control and Gait Performance in Healthy Participants: A Systematic Review of Cross-Sectional Studies.

Haoyu Xie, Meizhen Liang, Yujia Mo, Cindy Schmidt, Chuhuai Wang, Jung Hung Chien

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Haoyu XieDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Meizhen LiangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yujia MoChan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Cindy SchmidtLeon S. McGoogan Health Sciences Library, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Chuhuai WangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. rehab@163.com.
Jung Hung Chien, Omaha, NE, 68116, USA. drjc.science@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7792-9764
Sun Yat-sen University · CNUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha · USUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electricity and vibration were two commonly used physical agents to provide vestibular stimulation in previous studies. This study aimed to systematically review the effects of galvanic (GVS) and vibration-based vestibular stimulation (VVS) on gait performance and postural control in healthy participants. Five bioscience and engineering databases, including MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, were searched until March 19th, 2023. Studies published between 2000 and 2023 in English involving GVS and VVS related to gait performance and postural control were included. The procedure was followed via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the NIH study quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. A total of 55 cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Five studies were good-quality while 49 were moderate-quality and 1 was poor-quality. There were 50 included studies involving GVS and 5 included studies involving VVS. GVS and VVS utilized different physical agents to provide vestibular stimulation and demonstrated similar effects on vestibular perception. Supra-threshold GVS and VVS produced vestibular perturbation that impaired gait performance and postural control, while sub-threshold GVS and VVS induced stochastic resonance phenomenon that led to an improvement. Bilateral vestibular stimulation demonstrated a greater effect on gait and posture than unilateral vestibular stimulation. Compared to GVS, VVS had the characteristics of better tolerance and fewer side effects, which may substitute GVS to provide more acceptable vestibular stimulation.

Indexed as

GaitPostural BalanceVestibule, LabyrinthVibrationCross-Sectional StudiesElectric StimulationHealthy VolunteersHumansGait characteristicsGalvanic vestibular stimulationHealthy participantsPostural controlVibration-based vestibular stimulation

Identifiers

PMID38148425
OpenAlexW4390225823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.