A randomized clinical trial of an individualized home-based exercise programme for women with fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of a 12-week individualized home-based exercise programme on physical functioning, pain severity and psychological distress for women with fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: Seventy-nine women with a primary diagnosis of FM were randomized to a 12-week individualized home-based moderate-intensity exercise programme or to a usual care control group. Outcomes were functional capacity (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire), pain severity and psychological distress. Outcomes were measured at study entry, at the end of the 12-week intervention, and at 3 and 9 months following completion of the intervention. RESULTS: On the basis of intention-to-treat analyses, a significant improvement in functional capacity at 3 and 9 months following treatment for participants in the exercise group who were more functionally disabled at study entry was observed. At both 3 and 9 months post-treatment, the mean estimated benefit of the intervention was more than 10 points [-12.3 (95% CI, -21.9 to -2.8); -10.8 (95% CI, -21.5 to -0.2)]. Compared with the control group, statistically significant improvements in upper body pain were evident in the exercise group at post-treatment. These between-group differences in upper body pain were maintained at 3 and 9 months post-treatment. No statistically significant group differences on lower body pain and psychological distress were found. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based exercise, a relatively low-cost treatment modality, has the potential to improve important health outcomes in FM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".