Effect of aerobic exercise in the treatment of myofascial pain: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myofascial pain is prevalent chronic pain disorder that is comorbid with many conditions. Strengthening and stretching exercises are capable of inducing hypoalgesic effects in people with myofascial pain syndrome. The goal of this systematic review was to summarize the effects of aerobic exercise on the management of myofascial pain. A comprehensive database search was conducted. A total of 1,331 articles were identified for review. One article was eligible for inclusion after full screening. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black quality assessment questionnaire (1998). Mean difference scores were calculated for continuous variables. The identified study had a low risk of bias. It was a randomized controlled trial assessing the influence of an 8-week water aerobic exercise program on myofascial pain in breast cancer patients. Visual analogue scale pain intensity ratings and the number of myofascial trigger points present in the neck and shoulder/axillary area of participants significantly decreased in the exercise group compared to those in the control group. Pain pressure thresholds significantly increased in muscle areas of the cervical spine in the water exercise group. Aerobic exercise presents a potential treatment modality for managing myofascial pain. Additional research is necessary.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".