What are the functional and clinical characteristics shared by fibromyalgia and low back pain? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia and chronic primary low back pain are two chronic pain conditions with a significant biopsychosocial burden. Recently, the International Association for the Study of Pain has grouped them under the term chronic primary pain. To further explore similarities and differences between these two conditions, the objective of this scoping review is to explore the pain-related, physiological and psychological outcomes in individuals with fibromyalgia and low back pain. METHODS: The following databases were used to find relevant studies, using the PRISMA guidelines: Medline, Psycinfo, and CINAHL. Studies were included if they encompassed both participants with fibromyalgia or low back pain, with the objective to compare pain-related, physiological and/or psychological outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were selected for extraction. Among the 2801 participants, 968 had fibromyalgia (mean age 48.56 ± 7.97 years, with 94% being female) and 896 had low back pain (mean age 47.48 ± 8.15 years, with 80% being female). Pain sensitivity, physical dysfunction, illness perception, psychological distress, alexithymia, depression, and anxiety were generally more severe in participants with fibromyalgia. Most studies found similar levels of pain intensity, kinesiophobia, quality of pain, quality of life, impact of pain, suicidal risk, anger, and social support comparing individuals with fibromyalgia and individuals with low back pain. DISCUSSION: This scoping review highlights that although both conditions show similar pain intensity and impact on quality of life, fibromyalgia is associated with greater overall severity than low back pain, especially in sensitivity to pain and depression/anxiety.
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 | 0.015 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".