Table 5 Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach.

From: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of whole body vibration training on fibromyalgia

Certainty assessment

Number of patients

Effect

Certainty

Importance

Number of studies

Study design

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

Intervention group

Control group

Absolute (95% CI)

FIQ score

 5

RCT

Seriousa

Seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

None

79

75

SMD: 0.64 lower (1.21 lower to 0.08 lower)

Low

IMPORTNT

Pain score

 3

RCT

Seriousa

Seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

None

47

45

SMD: 0.89 lower (1.80 lower to 0.03 higher)

Low

IMPORTANT

Overall stability index

 3

RCT

Seriousa

Seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

None

52

48

SMD: 0.55 lower (0.95 lower to 0.15 lower)

Low

IMPORTANT

Anteroposterior stability index

 3

RCT

Seriousa

Seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

None

52

48

SMD: 0.32 lower (0.73 lower to 0.08 higher)

Low

IMPORTANT

Mediolateral stability index

 3

RCT

Seriousa

Seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

None

52

48

SMD: 0.27 lower (0.67 lower to 0.12 higher)

Low

IMPORTANT

Quality of life

 2

RCT

Seriousa

Seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

None

34

32

SMD: 0.72 higher (0.61 lower to 2.04 higher)

Low

IMPORTANT

6MWT

 2

RCT

Seriousa

Seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

None

37

35

SMD: 1.65 higher (1.11 higher to 2.20 higher)

Low

IMPORTANT

Lower body dynamic strength

 2

RCT

Seriousa

Seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

None

28

22

SMD: 0.22 higher (0.34 lower to 0.78 higher)

Low

IMPORTANT

  1. CI, confidence interval; FIQ, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SMD, standardized mean difference.
  2. a. Some studies did not conduct blinding for participants or therapists.
  3. b. The treatment protocols are different across the included studies.