## 3 Results  
Each group consisted of 10 participants, from WBV (two men and eight women) and sham (one man and nine women), as shown in Figure 2. For all variables, the groups were considered statistically comparable at baseline, as shown in Table 1). Figure 1: Regions of interest for infrared thermographic imaging: (**A**) sole of the feet; (**B**) back of the feet; (**C**) anterior leg; (**D**) back of the legs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**WBV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sham**} \\ \cline{2-4}
**Variables** & **G1** & **G2** & **(n=10)** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline Age (years) & 64.4 (\(\pm 3.99\)) & 65.2 (\(\pm 4.54\)) & 0.83 \\ \hline Diagnostic Time (years) & 7.29 (\(\pm 4.53\)) & 9.13 (\(\pm 6.81\)) & 0.55 \\ \hline Sex & 10 (100\%) & 10 (100\%) & \\ Male & 2 (20\%) & 1 (10\%) & 0.54 \\ Female & 8 (80\%) & 9 (90\%) & \\ \hline Smoker & & & \\ Yes & 3 (30\%) & 1 (10\%) & \\ No & 7 (70\%) & 9 (90\%) & 0.4 \\ Former smoker & 2 (28.6\%) & 3 (33.3\%) & \\ Passive smoker & - & - & \\ \hline Anthropometric data & & & \\ BMI & 30.4 (\(\pm 4\)) & 27.9 (\(\pm 3.9\)) & 0.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Baseline characteristics of patients in the whole-body vibration (WBV) and sham groups. Figure 2: Flow chart which describes the recruitment, randomization, and allocation of patients. Only the plantar region of the right foot suffered a statistically significant reduction in skin temperature in both groups. In the WBV group, there was a reduction from 29.7 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(\pm\)1.83) to 26.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(\pm\)2.27), \(p\) = 0.01. In the sham group, the reduction was from 28.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(\pm\)1.84) to 26.3 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(\pm\)2.49), \(p\) = 0.01. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. For all results, the effect size was considered low. Thermographic data are expressed in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**WBV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sham**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Effect Size**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-6}  & **Before** & **Post** & & & **\(p^{\star}\)** & **Before** & **Post** & \(p^{\star}\)** \\ \hline Plant right foot & 29.7 (\(\pm\)1.83) & 26.6 (\(\pm\)2.27) & 0.01 \({}^{\star}\) & 28.6 (\(\pm\)1.84) & 26.3 (\(\pm\)2.49) & 0.01 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.12 & 0.78 \\ Left foot plant & 26.9 (\(\pm\)2.33) & 26.7 (\(\pm\)1.89) & 0.84 & 28.7 (\(\pm\)2) & 26.3 (\(\pm\)2.21) & 0.05 & 0.18 & 0.67 \\ Back right foot & 29.6 (\(\pm\)1.64) & 29 (\(\pm\)1.7) & 0.33 & 30.2 (\(\pm\)1.93) & 29.2 (\(\pm\)1.23) & 0.07 & \(-\)0.16 & 0.77 \\ Back left foot & 27.9 (\(\pm\)1.85) & 29.3 (\(\pm\)1.06) & 0.06 & 30.2 (\(\pm\)1.93) & 29.7 (\(\pm\)1.25) & 0.30 & \(-\)0.32 & 0.45 \\ Anterior right leg & 30.1 (\(\pm\)1.59) & 30.1 (\(\pm\)1.59) & 0.52 & 30.3 (\(\pm\)1.06) & 30.3 (\(\pm\)1.06) & 0.48 & \(-\)0.19 & 0.74 \\ Anterior left leg & 30.1 (\(\pm\)1.52) & 30.1 (\(\pm\)1.52) & 0.21 & 30.4 (\(\pm\)1.26) & 30.4 (\(\pm\)1.26) & 0.36 & \(-\)0.24 & 0.64 \\ Posterior right leg & 30.4 (\(\pm\)0.97) & 30.3 (\(\pm\)1.06) & 0.80 & 30.4 (\(\pm\)9.7) & 30.4 (\(\pm\)0.84) & 1 & 0.12 & 0.82 \\ Posterior left leg & 30.6 (\(\pm\)0.97) & 30.3 (\(\pm\)1.34) & 0.54 & 30.5 (\(\pm\)1.08) & 30.6 (\(\pm\)0.84) & 0.76 & \(-\)0.32 & 0.56 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Data are expressed as mean (\(\pm\) standard deviation). Abbreviations: WBV, whole-body vibration; sham, dummy vibration. \(p^{\star}\), Wilcoxon; \(p\)-value, Mann-Whitney; \({}^{\star}\) statistically significant result.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean skin temperature analysis in \({}^{\circ}\)C (and standard deviation) before and after intervention (intra- and intergroup) and effect size.