Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Aerobic Fitness Exercises in the Management of Fibromyalgia: Part 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to create guidelines for the use of aerobic fitness exercises in the management of adult patients (>18 years of age) with fibromyalgia, as defined by the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria. METHODS: Following Cochrane Collaboration methods, the Ottawa Methods Group found and synthesized evidence from comparative controlled trials and formed the Ottawa Panel, with nominated experts from key stakeholder organizations. The Ottawa Panel then developed criteria for grading the recommendations based on experimental design (I for randomized controlled trials, II for nonrandomized studies) and strength of evidence (A, B, C+, C, D+, D, or D-). From the rigorous literature search, 13 randomized control trials and 3 controlled clinical trials were selected. Statistical analysis was based on Cochrane Collaboration methods. Continuous data were calculated with weighted mean differences between the intervention and control groups, and dichotomous data were analyzed with relative risks. Clinical improvement was calculated using absolute benefit and relative difference in change from baseline. Clinical significance was attained when an improvement of 15% relative to a control was found. RESULTS: There were 24 positive recommendations: 10 grade A, 1 grade B, and 13 grade C+. Of these 24 positive recommendations, only 5 were of clinical benefit. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The Ottawa Panel recommends aerobic fitness exercises for the management of fibromyalgia as a result of the emerging evidence (grades A, B, and C+, although most trials were rated low quality) shown in the literature.
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 | 0.058 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".