Effectiveness of pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia syndrome in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To summarize and evaluate Cochrane reviews of pharmacological therapies for adults with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) pain. METHODS: Systematic search of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to May 2024. Generic quality assessment used AMSTAR-2 criteria, validity checks of potentially critical factors in evaluation of analgesic efficacy and assessment of susceptibility of results to publication bias. Pain outcomes were participant-reported pain relief of ≥30% or ≥50%, or PGIC much or very much improved. RESULTS: Twenty-one reviews (87 trials, 17 631 patients) were included. All rated moderate (15) or high-quality (6) using AMSTAR-2 and at least seven of eight critical pain criteria were met by 13 of 21 reviews. Diagnosis of FMS used recognized criteria. Seven reviews found no trials (carbamazepine, clonazepam, lamotrigine, phenytoin, oxycodone, topiramate or valproate), seven had limited and inadequate data (antipsychotics, cannabinoids, combination therapy, gabapentin, lacosamide, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, NSAIDs) and two were subject to publication bias (amitriptyline, SSRI). Mirtazapine had moderate evidence of no effect. Duloxetine, milnacipran and pregabalin had moderate/good evidence of substantial pain relief for 4-12 weeks in around 1 in 10 adults with moderate or severe FMS pain, without evidence of efficacy beyond six months. Serious adverse events were no more common than with placebo. There was no evidence about who might benefit or experience adverse events. There was no substantial efficacy evidence for other medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine, milnacipran and pregabalin had good evidence that about 1 person in 10 with moderate or severe pain experienced pain intensity reduction by at least 50%.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".