Vibration Plate Statistics UK: 39 Sourced Figures
This page collects 39 figures about whole-body vibration and the UK conditions it is most often discussed for. Every row links to the PubMed abstract or official page it came from. We opened each source on 18 October 2026 and copied the numbers across, so you can check any figure yourself.
It is a numbers table. For what the research means in plain English, read our vibration plate research summary. For what the plates themselves publish, see the home plate specification data.
Read this first
Almost all of these figures come from trials run to a set protocol. The highest-quality bone density evidence used about 30 Hz, and several home plates in the UK, including most of the Bluefin range, state a main frequency of 12 Hz. Results from a study do not transfer automatically to a particular plate. This page is information, not medical advice. If you have a medical condition, are pregnant, or have an implant, talk to your GP before using a vibration plate.
Charts
Values copied from the abstracts linked in the tables above. The Dong row against traditional care crosses zero and is shown for balance. Cite this chart: bestvibrationplates.co.uk.
The review with the most studies (leg strength, 34) was mixed, and the weight and fat review (20 trials) found no significant effect. More studies do not mean a better result. Cite this chart: bestvibrationplates.co.uk.
Condition evidence index
This index gives one line per condition or outcome, the direction of the pooled evidence, and the page on this site that covers it.
| Condition | What the evidence shows | Direction | Source | Our page |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Falls in adults 50+ | 33% lower fall rate. Rate ratio 0.67 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.89) | Improved | Jepsen DB et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e018342 | Vibration plate benefits for older adults |
| Body weight and fat | No significant weight loss. Body mass mean difference 0.04; fat mass mean difference -0.90 (both not significant) | No significant effect | Gou P et al. Int J Obes 2025;49(11):2140-2155 | Vibration plate weight loss |
| Spine bone density, postmenopausal women | Lumbar spine BMD improved. Significant pre-post gain in lumbar spine BMD (P = .03) | Improved | Marín-Cascales E et al. Medicine 2018;97(34):e11918 | Osteoporosis and vibration plate training |
| Settings behind the bone density evidence | ≈30 Hz, ≈0.3 g, ≈7,000 minutes. High-quality evidence only for high frequency (≈30 Hz), low magnitude (≈0.3 g) and high cumulative dose (≈7,000 min) | Improved | de Oliveira RDJ et al. Osteoporos Int 2023;34(1):29-52 | Osteoporosis and vibration plate training |
| Hip and spine bone density, adults 55+ | Small effect at the total hip only. Total femur Hedges' g 0.28 (p = 0.04); femoral neck g 0.15 and lumbar spine g 0.13 not significant | Mixed | Massini DA et al. PeerJ 2025;13:e19230 | Osteoporosis and vibration plate training |
| Chronic musculoskeletal pain | Modest pain relief. Osteoarthritis SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.10); chronic low back pain SMD -0.44 (95% CI -0.75 to -0.13) | Improved | Dong Y et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019;100(11):2167-2178 | Back pain Arthritis pain relief |
| Knee osteoarthritis | Added benefit on top of strengthening. Pain SMD 0.46 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.71) for vibration plus strengthening exercise | Improved | Qiu CG et al. J Rehabil Med 2022;54:jrm00266 | Are vibration plates good for osteoarthritis |
| Leg strength, older adults | Leg strength up, not upper body. Significant gains in lower-limb strength versus control; no difference versus other exercise | Mixed | Gonçalves de Oliveira R et al. J Clin Med 2023;12(13):4467 | Do vibration plates build muscle |
| Balance and mobility, older adults | Basic balance improved. Significant effect on Tinetti total (p<0.001), Tinetti balance (p=0.010) and Timed-Up-and-Go (p=0.004) | Mixed | Lam FM et al. Maturitas 2012;72(3):206-13 | Vibration plate benefits for older adults |
| Fibromyalgia | Small gains in a 2025 review, very low certainty in Cochrane. Impact questionnaire SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.73 to -0.01), 7 trials | Mixed | Fibromyalgia meta-analysis, Sci Rep 2025; Cochrane 2017 | Vibration plate and fibromyalgia |
Direction summarises one review per row, not every study. Cite this index: bestvibrationplates.co.uk.
UK background: osteoporosis, falls and fractures
These figures explain why balance and bone density are the two outcomes people most often ask about. Falls and admissions are stated for England, the osteoporosis count for the UK.
| Statistic | Source | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Over 3 million people in the UK have osteoporosis. | Falls: applying All Our Health (OHID, GOV.UK) | 2022 |
| Around a third of people aged 65 and over, and around half of people aged 80 and over, fall at least once a year (stated for England). | Falls: applying All Our Health (OHID, GOV.UK) | 2022 |
| Around 220,160 emergency hospital admissions related to falls among patients aged 65 and over in England in 2017 to 2018, with around 146,665 (66.6%) of those patients aged 80 and over. | Falls: applying All Our Health (OHID, GOV.UK) | 2022 |
| Hip fractures alone account for 1.8 million hospital bed days and 1.1 billion pounds in hospital costs every year, excluding social care. | Falls: applying All Our Health (OHID, GOV.UK) | 2022 |
| The total annual cost of fragility fractures to the UK has been estimated at 4.4 billion pounds, which includes 1.1 billion pounds for social care. | Falls: applying All Our Health (OHID, GOV.UK) | 2022 |
| One-year mortality after a hip fracture is between 18% and 33%. | Falls: applying All Our Health (OHID, GOV.UK) | 2022 |
| Everyone gradually starts losing bone from around the age of 35; some people lose it much faster and develop osteoporosis. | Osteoporosis causes (NHS) | 2022 |
Cite this chart: bestvibrationplates.co.uk.
Bone density
Bone density results depend on who was studied and how the result was measured. The first row below is a before-and-after change inside vibration groups, while the second is a comparison with controls. Our osteoporosis and vibration plate training page explains the settings in more detail.
| Statistic | Source | Year |
|---|---|---|
| In 10 studies (14 vibration groups, 462 postmenopausal women), lumbar spine bone mineral density rose significantly from before to after vibration training (P = .03). This is a change within the vibration groups, not a comparison with controls. | Marin-Cascales et al., Medicine | 2018 |
| Femoral neck bone density differed significantly from controls (P = .03), but only in the analysis of postmenopausal women younger than 65. | Marin-Cascales et al., Medicine | 2018 |
| 23 studies reviewed, 20 meta-analysed, 13 of high methodological quality. High-quality evidence for lumbar spine bone density existed only for high frequency (about 30 Hz), low magnitude (about 0.3 g) and high cumulative dose (about 7,000 minutes). | de Oliveira et al., Osteoporosis International | 2023 |
| 7 studies, 202 adults aged 55 and over: total femur bone density Hedges g 0.28 (small, p = 0.04). Femoral neck (g 0.15, p = 0.19) and lumbar spine (g 0.13, p = 0.31) were not significant. Certainty was rated low. | Massini et al., PeerJ | 2025 |
| 30 trials using commercially available platforms: overall bone density Hedges g 0.11 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.22, p = 0.05), a borderline result. | Complementary Therapies in Medicine bone health meta-analysis | 2022 |
| In the same review, postmenopausal women had Hedges g 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.18, p = 0.02) and side-alternating vibration had g 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37, p = 0.02). | Complementary Therapies in Medicine bone health meta-analysis | 2022 |
| Compared with controls, no significant concurrent effect on hip or lumbar spine bone density, lean muscle mass or sit-to-stand time in older people. The authors note small samples and varied protocols. | Gerontology bone and muscle meta-analysis | 2022 |
| Across 14 trials in adults aged 50 and over, no overall effect on bone density (moderate to low quality evidence). Only one study reported fractures: risk ratio 0.47 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.57, P = 0.22), not significant. | Jepsen et al., BMJ Open | 2017 |
| 8 studies, 1,014 postmenopausal women: low-magnitude vibration improved lumbar spine bone density (weighted mean difference 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01, p = 0.007, N = 838). Femoral neck showed no significant difference. | Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research meta-analysis | 2016 |
Balance and falls
Falls are where the pooled evidence is strongest. The rate ratio below comes from four studies, and the older balance review found basic balance gains but not gait. See vibration plate benefits for older adults for the practical side.
| Statistic | Source | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Four studies (746 people) found vibration training lowered the rate of falls: rate ratio 0.67 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.89, P = 0.0006), moderate quality evidence. | Jepsen et al., BMJ Open | 2017 |
| Three further studies (805 people) showed only a trend towards fewer falls: risk ratio 0.76 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.20, P = 0.24), low quality evidence. | Jepsen et al., BMJ Open | 2017 |
| 13 trials in older adults: significant effects on Tinetti total score (p < 0.001), Tinetti balance score (p = 0.010) and Timed Up and Go (p = 0.004). Tinetti gait score did not improve significantly (p = 0.120) and the effect on fall rate was inconclusive. | Lam et al., Maturitas | 2012 |
| In a network meta-analysis of fall-prevention approaches for community-dwelling adults aged 65 and over, whole-body vibration was among the interventions with moderate certainty of some benefit. The review as a whole covered 219 trials (167,864 participants) and 59 interventions, not only vibration. | Falls prevention network meta-analysis, Systematic Reviews | 2024 |
| In knee osteoarthritis (vibration plus strengthening exercise), Timed Up and Go improved by standardised mean difference 0.82 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.18). Balance ability itself showed no significant change. | Qiu et al., Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine | 2022 |
Pain and joint conditions
Pain results are modest and often no better than traditional treatment. Our pages on back pain and osteoarthritis cover how people use plates alongside exercise.
| Statistic | Source | Year |
|---|---|---|
| 16 randomised trials pooled: pain eased in osteoarthritis (standardised mean difference -0.37, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.10). | Dong et al., Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation | 2019 |
| In the same review, pain eased in chronic low back pain (standardised mean difference -0.44, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.13). | Dong et al., Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation | 2019 |
| Against traditional treatment as the control, the pain result was not significant (standardised mean difference -1.02, 95% CI -2.44 to 0.4, I2 94%). | Dong et al., Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation | 2019 |
| 14 trials (559 patients) reviewed, 10 pooled: vibration plus strengthening exercise improved knee osteoarthritis pain (standardised mean difference 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.71) and WOMAC function (0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75). | Qiu et al., Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine | 2022 |
| Both low (10 to 30 Hz) and high (30 to 40 Hz) frequency vibration were linked to changes in pain, function and knee extensor strength. Stiffness, balance ability and quality of life did not change significantly. | Qiu et al., Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine | 2022 |
| 7 randomised trials in fibromyalgia: Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire standardised mean difference -0.37 (95% CI -0.73 to -0.01) and 6-minute walk test 1.65 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.20). The authors cite small samples and no standard guidelines. | Fibromyalgia meta-analysis, Scientific Reports | 2025 |
| The Cochrane review of 4 studies (150 women with fibromyalgia) rated the quality of evidence very low for every outcome and called the benefit uncertain. | Cochrane review: whole body vibration for fibromyalgia | 2017 |
Weight, body fat and muscle strength
The largest weight review found no significant change in body mass or fat mass from vibration training alone. See vibration plate weight loss for how that fits with diet and exercise.
| Statistic | Source | Year |
|---|---|---|
| 20 randomised trials, 585 participants: vibration training alone had no significant effect on body mass (mean difference 0.04) or BMI (-0.24). | Gou et al., International Journal of Obesity | 2025 |
| In the same review, fat mass (mean difference -0.90) and body fat percentage (0.04%) were not significantly changed. | Gou et al., International Journal of Obesity | 2025 |
| Participants aged 50 and over had a larger body fat percentage drop (mean difference -1.79%) than those under 50 (0.46%; p = 0.008), a possible age effect the authors say needs testing. | Gou et al., International Journal of Obesity | 2025 |
| 34 studies in older adults: significant lower-limb strength gains versus control groups, but no difference versus other exercise, and no significant effect on upper-limb strength, lower-limb power or endurance. 56% of studies had low methodological quality. | Goncalves de Oliveira et al., Journal of Clinical Medicine | 2023 |
Safety and limits of the evidence
Few trials were designed to measure harm, so a lack of reported adverse events is not proof of safety. We did not find a primary source list of contraindications that we could open and quote, so none is given here. Our safety guidelines page covers who should check with a clinician first.
| Statistic | Source | Year |
|---|---|---|
| No adverse events were reported across the 14 knee osteoarthritis trials (559 patients), although one study in the meta-analysis showed negative effects of vibration on knee osteoarthritis. | Qiu et al., Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine | 2022 |
| The Cochrane fibromyalgia review reported two adverse events: acute leg pain (one participant dropped out) and one mild anxiety attack at the first session. The studies were too small for meaningful estimates of harm. | Cochrane review: whole body vibration for fibromyalgia | 2017 |
| No complication was reported in the 8 postmenopausal-women studies (1,014 patients). | Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research meta-analysis | 2016 |
| The bone density review says participant safety needs attention, especially at higher magnitudes (1 g or more). | de Oliveira et al., Osteoporosis International | 2023 |
| A published case report describes significant illness after one vibration session in a patient with kidney stones that had caused no symptoms. It is a single case, not a rate. | Case report, Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness | 2007 |
| UK workplace regulations set a daily whole-body vibration exposure action value of 0.5 m/s2 A(8) and a limit of 1.15 m/s2 A(8) for employees. These apply to work equipment, not exercise plates, and plate makers rarely publish acceleration, so they cannot be compared directly. | Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, regulation 4 (legislation.gov.uk) | 2005 |
| Because vibration parameters are often under-reported, an expert panel (51, 40 and 37 experts over three rounds, 17 countries) agreed a 40-item reporting list with 94.6% consensus. | Wuestefeld et al., PLoS One (Delphi study) | 2020 |
How to cite this data
Best Vibration Plates UK editorial team (2026). Vibration plate statistics UK: 39 sourced figures. bestvibrationplates.co.uk/vibration-plate-statistics-uk/. Figures checked 18 October 2026.
You are welcome to quote a figure with a link to this page. Where you can, cite the original paper through the link in the row rather than this page, because the original is the primary source. If a link breaks or a figure looks wrong, use the contact page and we will recheck it.
Sources and method
Each figure was copied from the abstract of the linked paper or from the linked official page, including its stated scope and certainty. A figure that we could not confirm against its source was left out. We use only primary sources: PubMed abstracts, GOV.UK, the NHS and legislation.gov.uk. We have not used manufacturer marketing claims, retailer pages or review counts.