Mechanisms hypothesized for pain-relieving effects of exercise in fibromyalgia: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise is one of the most recommended management strategies by treatment guidelines for fibromyalgia (FM); however, the mechanism through which exercise improves pain in FM is still unknown. Objective: We aimed to summarize the hypothesized theoretical mechanisms for the pain-relieving effects of exercise in people with FM. Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English reporting mechanisms for pain-relieving effects of exercise in the ‘Introduction’ and ‘Discussion’ sections and significant within- group or between-group effects of exercise interventions were included. Sources of Evidence: We searched the databases Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, CINAHL, COCHRANE, Sports Discuss, and AMED with the keywords: exercise and fibromyalgia until December 2021. Charting Methods: Two authors independently performed title/abstract, full-text review, and data abstraction using a data abstraction form. The hypothesized mechanisms from individual studies were grouped into three categories. Results: The literature search resulted in 2147 studies, out of which 220 studies were considered for full-text review. A total of 50 RCTs proposing 29 unique mechanisms for the pain-relieving effects of exercise were included. These mechanisms were divided into three categories: physical, neuro-physiological, and psychological. The neuro-physiological category was further subdivided into exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH), pain sensitization, the autonomic system, the immune system, the endocrine system, and miscellaneous categories. The most frequently hypothesized mechanisms were EIH ( n = 15), autonomic modulation ( n = 7), improved sleep ( n = 6), muscle oxygenation ( n = 6), self-efficacy ( n = 5), mental health ( n = 4), and benefits of the aquatic environment ( n = 12). While all exercise interventions involved FM patients, most of the supporting evidence for these mechanisms was cited from previous studies conducted on healthy samples. No studies performed analyses to demonstrate causal associations between the mechanisms and outcomes. Conclusion: Multiple mechanisms were hypothesized for the positive influence of exercise in people with FM. Future studies using causal analyses, such as mediation analysis, are recommended to validate these mechanisms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".