Therapeutic validity of exercise interventions in the management of fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic validity of exercise interventions included in a previous umbrella systematic review of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the management of fibromyalgia and to explore whether exercise interventions with high therapeutic validity and that meet the 2013 American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines are positively associated with greater pain relief. METHODS: Therapeutic validity was evaluated based on the CONsensus on Therapeutic Exercise and Training (CONTENT) Scale, in high methodological quality RCTs found in the nine systematic reviews of a previous umbrella review on exercise interventions in the management of fibromyalgia. Additionally, adherence to the 2013 ACSM exercise recommendations for fibromyalgia was analyzed. The effect size for pain relief after the exercise programs was also considered. RESULTS: The CONTENT mean total score was 4.42 out of 9, demonstrating generally low therapeutic validity of the 28 included RCTs. There was poor concordance between therapeutic validity and pain relief (Kappa values ranging between -0.6 to 0.57). Kappa statistic results showed poor concordance (k=0.01) between statistically significant (P<0.05) pain relief values and adherence to the 2013 ACSM exercise recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic validity of exercise intervention programs in fibromyalgia is low. This is mainly due to incomplete descriptions of exercise interventions and adherence. Poor concordance is found between high therapeutic validity and adherence to the ACSM exercise recommendations with pain relief. Improved standardized reporting is recommended to identify optimal exercise prescription for 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 | 0.395 | 0.614 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".