Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FMS) is a syndrome expressed by chronic widespread body pain which leads to reduced physical function and frequent use of health care services. Exercise training is commonly recommended as a treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of exercise training as an treatment for FMS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 6 electronic bibliographies for studies of exercise training in FMS: MEDLINE (1966-12/2000), CINAHL (1982-12/2000), HealthSTAR (1990-12/2000), Sports Discus (1975-05/2000), EMBASE (1974-05/2000) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (2000, issue 4). We also reviewed the reference lists from identified articles including reviews and meta-analyses of treatment studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials focused on cardiorespiratory endurance, muscle strength and/or flexibility as treatment for FMS were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently identified trials meeting inclusion criteria, rated the methodologic quality using 2 standardized validated instruments, evaluated the adequacy of the exercise training stimulus using the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) criteria and evaluated the results. Disagreements were resolved through active discussion and consensus. High quality training studies had scores of 50% or greater on van Tulder methodologic criteria and met the minimum training standards of ACSM. Outcome variables were grouped into 7 constructs: pain, tender points, physical function, global well being, self efficacy, fatigue & sleep, and psychological function. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, results and point estimates for selected variables, and used consensus to address discrepancies. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials involving a total of 724 participants were assigned at random to: exercise intervention groups (n=379), control groups (n=277), or groups receiving an alternate treatment (n=68). Seven studies were high quality training studies: 4 aerobic training, 1 a mixture of aerobic, strength and flexibility training, 1 strength training and 2 with exercise training as part of a composite treatment. Flexibility protocols were never described in sufficient detail to allow evaluation. The four high quality aerobic training studies reported significantly greater improvements in the exercise groups versus control groups in aerobic performance (17.1% increase in aerobic performance with exercise versus 0.5% increase in the control groups), tender point pain pressure threshold (28.1% increase versus 7.0% decrease) and improvements in pain (11.4% decrease in pain versus 1.6% increase). Poor description of exercise protocols was common, with insufficient information on intensity, duration, frequency and mode of exercise. Adverse events were also poorly reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Supervised aerobic exercise training has beneficial effects on physical capacity and FMS symptoms. Strength training may also have benefits on some FMS symptoms. Further studies on muscle strengthening and flexibility are needed. Research on the long-term benefit of exercise for FMS is needed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».