Exercise for Adults with Fibromyalgia: An Umbrella Systematic Review with Synthesis of Best Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this umbrella systematic review was to identify, evaluate, and synthesize systematic reviews of physical activity interventions for adults with fibromyalgia (FM) focussing on four outcomes: pain, multidimensional function (wellness or quality of life), physical function (self-reported physical function or measured physical fitness) and adverse effects. A further objective was to link these outcomes with details of the interventions so as to guide and shape future practice and research. Electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and DARE, were searched for the January 1(st) 2007 to March 31(st) 2013 period. Nine systematic reviews (60 RCTs with 3816 participants) were included. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to the heterogeneity of the sample. We found positive results of diverse exercise interventions on pain, multidimensional function, and self-reported physical function, and no supporting evidence for new (to FM) interventions (i.e., qigong, tai chi). There were no serious adverse effects reported. The variability of the interventions in the reviews prevented us from answering important clinical questions to guide practical decisions about optimal modes or dosages (i.e., frequency, intensity, duration). Finally, the number of review articles is proliferating, leading researchers and reviewers to consider the rigor and quality of the information being reviewed. As well, consumers of these reviews (i.e., clinicians, individuals with FM) should not rely on them without careful consideration.
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 | 0.053 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".