A study of the description of exercise programs evaluated in randomized controlled trials involving people with fibromyalgia using different reporting tools, and validity of the tools related to pain relief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE:: Exercise programs for the management of fibromyalgia are well recognized as being effective. However, the incomplete descriptions of exercise programs make replication and implementation difficult. Also, existing reporting tools have not been validated in relation to pain relief as well as with each other. OBJECTIVES:: This study aimed to evaluate the description of exercise programs in randomized control trials for the management of fibromyalgia using different assessment tools, and the correlations of each tool in relation to effectiveness of pain relief of fibromyalgia, and the correlations between each tool. METHOD/RESULTS:: Through a consensus made by two different pairs of reviewers and an arbitrator, the mean total scores for the exercise programs were reported: 10.61/19 for Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template; 4.17/12 for Template for Intervention Description and Replication; 7.05/12 for the Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training; and 2.50/4 (aerobic) and 2.36/5 (flexibility and resistance) for the 2016 American College of Sports Medicine guidelines. This demonstrates generally low reporting scores (less than 60% out of the total number of items were reported). Overall, low correlations (Cohen's kappa value, ranging from -0.47 (poor) to 0.313 (fair)) were found between all tools and pain relief. Good to excellent correlations (0.680-0.908) among the reporting tools were shown. CONCLUSION:: Incomplete descriptions of exercise programs were consistently shown among the randomized clinical trials assessed in this study. The overall weak correlations demonstrated that the reporting tools have the limited ability to determine whether exercise programs were or were not effective for pain relief among individuals with fibromyalgia.
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 | 0.606 | 0.798 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".