Short-term Effects of a Manual Therapy Protocol on Pain, Physical Function, Quality of Sleep, Depressive Symptoms, and Pressure Sensitivity in Women and Men With Fibromyalgia Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the therapeutic effects of a manual therapy protocol for improving pain, function, pressure pain thresholds (PPT), quality of sleep, and depressive symptoms in women and men with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine patients were randomly assigned to experimental or control group. The experimental group (24 female, 21 male) received 5 sessions of manual therapy and the control group (24 female, 21 male) did not receive any intervention. PPT, pain, impact of FMS symptoms, quality of sleep, and depressive symptoms were assessed in both groups at baseline and after 48 hours of the last intervention in the experimental group. RESULTS: The analysis of covariance found significant Group×Time×Sex interactions for McGill PPI and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depressive Symptoms Scale (P<0.01) was also found: men exhibited a larger effect size for depressive symptoms than women, whereas women exhibited a greater effect size than men in the McGill PPI. A significant Group×Time×Sex interaction for PPT over suboccipital, upper trapezius, supraspinatus, second rib, gluteal region, and tibialis anterior muscle was also found: men included in the experimental group experienced significant greater improvements in PPT as compared with women with FMS in the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: Manual therapy protocol was effective for improving pain intensity, widespread pressure pain sensitivity, impact of FMS symptoms, sleep quality, and depressive symptoms. In addition, sex differences were observed in response to treatment: women and men get similar improvements in quality of sleep and tender point count, whereas women showed a greater reduction in pain and impact of FMS symptoms than men, but men reported higher decreases in depressive symptoms and pressure hypersensitivity than women.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".