Participants
Participants were recruited through Starship Children’s Hospital (Auckland, NZ), Waikato Hospital (Hamilton, NZ), satellite schools, and word-of-mouth (i.e., self-referrals). Children aged 5 to 12 years 11 months with a diagnosis of any type of CP and level I-III on the GMFCS were recruited for the study. Additional inclusion criteria included the ability to understand and follow the instructions on the study protocol, ability to safely stand on a vibration plate with or without support, and having no planned surgery within 8 months before/after entering the study. The exclusion criteria included a bone fracture within 12 weeks of enrolment, history of using anabolic agents, glucocorticoids (excluding inhaled), or growth hormone therapy for at least 1 month within 3 months prior to enrolment, history of botulinum toxin injection into the lower limb(s) within 3 months before enrolment, and a history of an illness or findings on physical examination that might prevent a child from completing the study (e.g., acute thrombosis or tendinitis) [15].
Study design
This was a randomised, prospective interventional study with each participant acting as their own control, with 12 weeks of a lead-in control period prior to 20 weeks of intervention (Fig. 1). During their first visit, participants were randomly assigned following simple randomization procedures (computerized random number generator at https://www.randomizer.org) to one of two groups of sVT at 20 Hz or 25 Hz. Participants of both group had four assessment visits to the Maurice and Agnes Paykel Clinical Research Unit (Liggins Institute, University of Auckland) between 2019 and 2021. Following the baseline assessment (T0), participants underwent a 12-week lead-in “control” period, followed by a pre-intervention assessment (T1). Immediately after the T1 assessment, participants started a 20-week intervention period (i.e., sVT). After 12 weeks of the VT, participants had a third assessment (T2-12VT), followed by another 8 weeks of intervention and the final assessment (T3-20VT).
The study procedures were performed by the same research team members who were unblinded to participants groups. Researchers were required to know the group frequency to provide appropriate monitoring of sessions and training progression (e.g. monitor correct frequency use, increase in frequency). In addition, the vibration frequency display can be easily observed by both researchers and participants, which unblinds participants to the group allocation.
During the control period, participants continued with their usual lifestyle and were recommended to avoid starting any new activities during the study duration. Throughout the intervention period, in addition to activities during the control period, participants underwent sVT.
Vibration therapy protocol
sVT was performed on Galileo Basic vibration plates (Novotec Medical, Pforzheim, Germany) 4 days a week, for 9 minutes at a target frequency of either 20 Hz or 25 Hz, and amplitude 2–4 mm. During the sVT sessions, participants were instructed to stand barefoot on the vibration plate with knees bent at approximately 30 degrees, with their back straight, and arms free. Families were given the option to perform sVT sessions at school or at home. School-based sVT sessions were supervised by one of the investigators (AA) and/or school physiotherapists who were familiar with sVT and participants’ supervision specifications. Home-based sVT sessions were supervised by parents/caregivers, who had an instruction session with researchers before commencing sVT. To ensure safety and monitor progress, an investigator provided regular support to families via researcher-supervised sessions at home and by contacting families via phone/email. Participants and their parents/caregivers were asked to complete a VT diary, by recording sVT sessions, reasons for missing sessions, and side effects (if any).
Assessments
The primary outcome measure was mobility, assessed by a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Secondary outcome measures included gross motor function, body composition, muscle strength, balance, and health-related quality of life. At the beginning of each assessment visit, participants’ anthropometry data (i.e., height, weight), blood pressure and pulse were measured as described in detail in the published study protocol [15].
Mobility
To assess mobility, a 6MWT, which has been shown to have good-to-excellent test-retest reliability and validity in children with CP; and is easy and safe to perform was used [16,17,18]. For the test, participants were instructed to walk as fast as they could for 6 minutes over the flat straight indoor corridor between two cones distanced 25 m apart [15]. The total walked distance to the nearest 0.5 m, along with the time taken to reach individual milestones (50 m) were recorded.
In addition to the 6MWT, a ten-metre walk test (10MWT) was used to assess gait speed. For this test, a straight flat indoor corridor was marked at 0, 2, 8, and 10 m [19]. Children were instructed to walk at the fastest pace from 0 to 10 m marks, and the time covered between 2 and 8 m marks was recorded. 10MWT was performed three times with a rest period of 30 seconds between trials, and the average time of three attempts was taken for speed calculation (i.e., 6 m/time in sec). The test was performed barefoot; participants were allowed to use a walking aid.
Gross motor function
Gross motor function was evaluated using the Gross Motor Function Measure-88 (GMFM-88), a reliable and valid scale for applied research in children with CP [20, 21]. The GMFM-88 (88 items) is standardized for use in children aged between 5 months and 16 years and is divided into 5 dimensions: (A) lying/rolling, (B) sitting, (C) crawling/kneeling, (D) standing, and (E) walking/running/jumping [22]. In this study, we assessed dimensions D (GMFM-D) and E (GMFM-E).
Body composition
Whole-body and lumbar spine (L1-L4) dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans (Lunar iDXA, GE Healthcare, Madison, WI, USA) were performed to measure body composition. These two sites are recommended by the International Society for Clinical Densitometry as the most accurate and reproducible sites in children to assess bone mineral density [23]. Key parameters of interest included total body less head (TBLH), areal bone mineral density (aBMD), bone mineral content (BMC), lean mass, and fat mass.
Muscle function
Muscle function was assessed by a hand-held dynamometry (HHD), the chair rising test (CRT), the single two-leg jump test (STLJT), and the balance test (BT). Muscle strength of five muscle groups in both legs was assessed with an HHD (MicroFET2, Hoggan Scientific, USA) by a “make” technique [24]. This included hip flexors and extensors, knee flexors and extensors, and ankle dorsiflexors. Muscle strength was measured three times on each leg, and the average was used for analysis. CRT, STLJT, and double leg BT were performed on the Leonardo™ Mechanography Ground Reaction Force Plate (Novotec Medical, Pforzheim, Germany), a reliable and valid instrument in children with musculoskeletal disabilities including CP [2, 25, 26]. Each test was performed three times, and the best result was recorded for analysis: CRT – the fastest time to complete the test; STLJ – the maximum peak velocity; double leg BT – the smallest elliptical area [15, 25].
Health-related quality of life
The Cerebral Palsy Quality of Life Questionnaire for Primary Caregiver (CP QOL) was administered to evaluate participants’ well-being, participation, communication, pain and feelings about disability, and family health. The questionnaire has strong validity and reliability [27] and is widely used for research purposes [2, 28]. During each assessment visit, the questionnaire was filled out by the same person (a parent or a caregiver) to avoid a different perception of a child’s well-being. The total score for each domain was calculated and analysed.
Please note, that due to variations in CP presentation (i.e., GMFCS level), some assessments were not performed by all participants; the respective number is reported in the tables with outcomes.
Statistical analyses
The sample size calculation is described in the published study ptotocol [15].
The potential effects of sVT on the primary outcome (6MWT) were performed based on intention-to-treat (ITT), including all data recorded throughout the trial. Per-protocol analyses (PPA) were also run on the primary outcome and all secondary outcomes, excluding data associated with protocol violations.
Analyses were carried out using linear mixed models based on repeated measures. The model for any given outcome included the three sequential measurements (if available) for all participants at the end of the Control period and after 12 weeks and 20 weeks of sVT (12VT and 20VT, respectively). Models included the study ID as a random factor to account for the non-independence of multiple measurements on the same participant, study period (i.e., Control, 12VT, and 20VT), and randomisation group (20 vs 25 Hz), with participant’s GMFCS level and the value of the outcome at baseline (T0) also included as covariates.
In addition, the linear association between the baseline values for a given outcome and the participants’ ages at baseline were assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficients; where a statistically significant association was observed (at p < 0.05), the number of days elapsed between the baseline assessment and a given follow-up assessment was also included as a covariate to account for the participants’ potential linear growth throughout the study.
Potential 2-way and 3-way interactions between the study period, randomisation group, and GMFCS level were assessed for all models, and where a significant interaction was present results were reported accordingly. However, non-significant interactions were removed from the models.
Data are reported as the least-squares means (i.e., adjusted means) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI), with pairwise differences between assessments reported as the adjusted mean differences (aMD) and the 95% CI. Compliance data are reported as the median, quartile 1 (Q1, 25th percentile), and quartile 3 (Q3, 75th percentile). The distribution of all outcomes was examined, and, where appropriate, data were log-transformed to approximate a normal distribution, with results back-transformed for reporting.
Data were analysed using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). There was no imputation of missing values. All statistical tests were two-sided, with statistical significance maintained at p < 0.05 without adjustment for multiple comparisons as per Rothman 1990 [29].