Vibration therapy in young children with mild to moderate cerebral palsy: does frequency and treatment duration matter? A randomised-controlled study

Table 3 Gross motor function outcomes

Parameters, units	n	Control period	12VT	20VT	12VT vs Control	20VT vs Control	20 VT vs 12VT
GMFM-D (level I-II), score	25	32.8 (31.9, 33.7)	33.6 (32.7, 34.5)	34.1 (33.2, 35.0)	0.8 (0.2, 1.4)**	1.3 (0.5, 2.1)**	0.5 (−0.1, 1.2)
GMFM-D (level III), score	5	26.7 (23.4, 30.1)	29.7 (26.4, 33.1)	31.7 (28.4, 35.1)	3.0 (1.6, 4.4)****	5.0 (3.3, 6.7)****	2.0 (0.6, 3.4)^††
GMFM-E, score	30	49.2 (47.6, 50.8)	51.7 (50.1, 53.3)	52.9 (51.3, 54.5)	2.5 (1.6, 3.3)****	3.7 (2.6, 4.8)****	1.2 (0.3, 2.2)^†

12VT, assessment after 12 weeks of side-alternating vibration therapy; 20VT, assessment after 20 weeks of side-alternatingvibration therapy; GMFM-D, gross motor function measure dimension D; GMFM-E, gross motor function measure dimension E
Data at each assessment are the adjusted means and 95% confidence intervals (CI), while differences between assessments are the adjusted mean differences and 95% CI; GMFM-E values were derived from linear mixed models based on repeated measures including the participant’s GMFCS level, randomisation group (20 Hz / 25 Hz), and the baseline value of the outcome as a covariate; GMFM-D values were similarly derived but with the inclusion of an interaction term between GMFCS level and assessment
Statistically significant differences (at p < 0.05) between assessments are shown in bold; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ****p < 0.0001 for pairwise differences compared to the Control period; ^†p < 0.05 and ^††p < 0.01 for differences between 12VT and 20VT

ISSN: 1471-2431