Effects of myofascial release techniques on pain, physical function, and postural stability in patients with fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of myofascial release techniques on pain symptoms, postural stability and physical function in fibromyalgia syndrome. DESIGN: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken. SUBJECTS: Eighty-six patients with fibromyalgia syndrome were randomly assigned to an experimental group and a placebo group. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received treatments for 20 weeks. The experimental group underwent 10 myofascial release modalities and the placebo group received sham short-wave and ultrasound electrotherapy. MAIN MEASURES: Outcome variables were number of tender points, pain, postural stability, physical function, clinical severity and global clinical assessment of improvement. Outcome measures were assessed before and immediately after, at six months and one year after the last session of the corresponding intervention. RESULTS: After 20 weeks of myofascial therapy, the experimental group showed a significant improvement (P < 0.05) in painful tender points, McGill Pain Score (20.6 ± 6.3, P < 0.032), physical function (56.10 ± 17.3, P < 0.029), and clinical severity (5.08 ± 1.03, P < 0.039). At six months post intervention, the experimental group had a significantly lower mean number of painful points, pain score (8.25 ± 1.13, P < 0.048), physical function (58.60 ± 16.30, P < 0.049) and clinical severity (5.28 ± 0.97, P < 0.043). At one year post intervention, the only significant improvements were in painful points at second left rib and left gluteal muscle, affective dimension, number of days feeling good and clinical severity. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that myofascial release techniques can be a complementary therapy for pain symptoms, physical function and clinical severity but do not improve postural stability in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".