Multicenter randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavioral, exercise-based, and combined interventions for juvenile fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Juvenile fibromyalgia (JFM) is a complex and disabling chronic pain condition for which treatment options are limited. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the relative efficacy of 3 group-based interventions: cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) alone, graded aerobic exercise (GAE) alone, or CBT combined with specialized neuromuscular exercise (Fibromyalgia Integrative Training [FIT] Teens), in reducing pain-related disability for adolescents with JFM. Patients with JFM (ages 12-17) who experienced moderate-to-severe pain and pain-related disability were eligible. A total of 317 adolescents (86.4% girls, 84.2% White, mean age 15.8 years) were randomized to receive 8 weeks (16 sessions) of CBT (N = 110), GAE (N = 104), or FIT Teens (N = 103), followed by 4 booster sessions. Our primary hypothesis that the FIT Teens intervention would be superior to CBT or GAE was not supported. Rather, participants in all treatments showed significant reduction in disability with no differences between groups at the 3-month primary endpoint (main effect estimate = -3·94 [95% CI: -6·62 to -1·26]) and at 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up (main effect estimate = -4·52 [95% CI: -7·35 to -1·68]; -4·21 [95% CI: -7·13 to -1·29]; and -4·76 [95% CI: -7·84 to -1·68], respectively). Pain intensity was significantly improved at 9- and 12-month follow-up. Although the overall magnitude of improvement in disability was small, approximately 1 in 4 patients in the FIT and CBT groups had clinically remarkable improvement. Cognitive-behavioral and exercise-based treatments are promising for the management of JFM. Further research is needed to examine the characteristics of treatment responders and the mechanisms of improvement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".