Exercise for fibromyalgia: a systematic review.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".