Exercise for fibromyalgia: a systematic review.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a syndrome expressed by chronic widespread pain often associated with reduced physical function. Exercise is a common recommendation in management of FM. We evaluated the effects of exercise training on global well-being, selected signs and symptoms, and physical function in individuals with FM. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, PubMed, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials to July 2005 and included randomized trials evaluating cardiorespiratory endurance, muscle strength, and flexibility. Methodological quality was assessed using the van Tulder and Jadad instruments. Training protocols were evaluated using American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines. Clinical heterogeneity limited metaanalysis to 6 aerobic and 2 strength studies. RESULTS: There were 2276 subjects across the 34 studies; 1264 subjects were assigned to exercise interventions. Metaanalysis of 6 studies provided moderate-quality evidence that aerobic-only exercise training at ACSM-recommended intensity levels has positive effects on global well-being (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.23-0.75) and physical function (SMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.41-0.92) and possibly on pain (SMD 0.65, 95% CI -0.09 to 1.39) and tender points (SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.65). Strength and flexibility remain underevaluated; however, strength training may have a positive effect on FM symptoms. CONCLUSION: Aerobic-only training has beneficial effects on physical function and some FM symptoms. Strength-only training may improve FM symptoms, but requires further study. Large, high-quality studies of exercise-only interventions that provide detailed information on exercise prescription and adherence are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it