Whole-body vibration (WBV) is an exercise modality or treatment/prophylaxis method in which subjects (humans, animals, or cells) are exposed to mechanical vibrations through a vibrating platform or device. The vibrations are defined by their direction, frequency, magnitude, duration, and the number of daily bouts. Subjects can be exposed while performing exercises, hold postures, sitting, or lying down. Worldwide, WBV has attracted significant attention, and the number of studies is rising. To interpret, compare, and aggregate studies, the correct, complete, and consistent reporting of WBV-specific data (WBV parameters) is critical. Specific reporting guidelines aid in accomplishing this goal. There was a need to expand existing guidelines because of continuous developments in the field of WBV research, including but not limited to new outcome measures regarding brain function and cognition, modified designs of WBV platforms and attachments (e.g., mounting a chair on a platform), and comparisons of animal and cell culture studies with human studies. Based on Delphi studies among experts and using EQUATOR recommendations, we have developed extended reporting guidelines with checklists for human and animal/cell culture research, including information on devices, vibrations, administration, general protocol, and subjects. In addition, we provide explanations and examples of how to report. These new reporting guidelines are specific to WBV variables and do not target research designs in general. Researchers are encouraged to use the new WBV guidelines in addition to general design-specific guidelines.

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a hereditary disease causing reduced bone mass, increased fracture rate, long bone deformities and vertebral compressions. Additional non skeletal findings are caused by impaired collagen function and include hyperlaxity of joints and blue sclera. Most OI cases are caused by dominant mutations in COL1A1/2 affecting bone formation. During the last years, recessive forms of OI have been identified, mostly affecting posttranslational modification of collagen. In 2011, mutations in SERPINF1 were identified as the molecular cause of OI type VI, and thereby a novel pathophysiology of the disease was elucidated. The subgroup of patients with OI type VI are affected by an increased bone resorption, leading to the same symptoms as observed in patients with an impaired bone formation. Severely affected children are currently treated with intravenous bisphosphonates regardless of the underlying mutation and pathophysiology. Patients with OI type VI are known to have a poor response to such a bisphosphonate treatment. Deciphering the genetic cause of OI type VI in our 4 patients (three children and one adolescent) led to an immediate translational approach in the form of a treatment with the monoclonal RANKL antibody Denosumab (1 mg/kg body weight every 12 weeks). Short-term biochemical response to this treatment was reported previously. We now present the results after 2 years of treatment and demonstrate a long term benefit as well as an increase of bone mineral density, a normalization of vertebral shape, an increase of mobility, and a reduced fracture rate. This report presents the first two-year data of denosumab treatment in patients with Osteogenesis imperfecta type VI and in Osteogenesis imperfecta in general as an effective and apparently safe treatment option.

This review focuses on methodological concepts in the evaluation of skeletal muscle function and on adaptation. It is now thought that the critical property of bone is strength rather than weight, and that control of bone strength is mainly exercised through the effect of the mechanical loads brought to bear on bone. Muscle contraction places the greatest physiological load on bone, and so the stability of bone must be adapted to muscle strength (the functional muscle–bone unit). The described suggestions and recommendations outline a new concept: bone mass and strength should not be related to age. There is now more and more evidence that bone mass and strength should be related to muscle function. Thus analyzed, there is no such entity as ‘peak bone mass’. Many studies are presently under way to evaluate whether these novel approaches increase the sensitivity and specificity of fracture prediction in an individual. Furthermore, the focus of many bone researchers is shifting away from bone mass to bone geometry or bone strength and their relationship with the driving muscle system.