Effects of Myofascial Release on the Pain and Quality of Life in Patients with Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the effects of myofascial release technique on pain and quality of life (QoL) in patients with fibromyalgia (FM). Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted to investigate the effects of myofascial release technique on patients with FM in Shalamar Hospital Lahore, Pakistan. After initial screening, 28 patients aged 25 to 45 years of both genders meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria were selected using convenience sampling. They were divided into two groups. Group A was treated with myofascial release therapy and passive stretching, while group B was treated with passive stretching alone. The McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) was used to assess the pain, and the revised FM impact questionnaire (FIQR) was used to evaluate QoL. Results: Out of 28 participants, 11(39.3%) were male and 17(60.7%) were females. Pre- and post-treatment mean scores of pain rating index on MPQ were 46.76±10.47 and 23.79±7.43 for the experimental group and 43.36±12.7 and 30.0±9.89 for the control group, respectively (P>0.05). Mean pre- and post-treatment FIQR scores were 52.9±13.6 and 33.02±13.75 for the experimental group and 57.77±23.04 and 46.59±19.37 for the control group, respectively. The difference in the means of post-treatment scores of the two groups for FIQR was significant (P=0.042). Discussion: Compared with passive stretching alone, the myofascial release method for FM did not demonstrate significant improvement in alleviating pain among such patients. However, it is remarkable that myofascial release therapy unveiled a positive impact by improving the overall QoL for FM patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".