Cited by 76Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of fibromyalgia treatment according to level of care

Open access
Garcia-Campayo, Javier, Magdalena, Jesus, Magallón, Rosa, Fernández-García, Esther, Salas, Montserrat, Andrés, Eva·2008·Arthritis Research & Therapy

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this paper was to compare the efficacy of the treatments for fibromyalgia currently available in both primary care and specialised settings. Methods: Published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) researching pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in patients with fibromyalgia were found in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsychInfo databases. The most recent electronic search was undertaken in June 2006. Results: We identified a total of 594 articles. Based on titles and abstracts, 102 full articles were retrieved, 33 of which met the inclusion criteria. These RCTs assessed 120 treatment interventions in 7789 patients diagnosed with primary fibromyalgia. Of them, 4505 (57.8%) were included in the primary care group of our study and 3284 (42.2%) in the specialised intervention group. The sample was mostly made up of middle-aged women, who have had fibromyalgia for a mean period of 6 to 10 years. The mean effect size of the efficacy of the 120 treatment interventions in patients with fibromyalgia compared with controls was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.39 to 0.58; p < 0.001). In the primary care group it was 0.46 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.58) while in specialised care it was 0.53 (95% CI = 0.38 to 0.69), with no statistical significance in the differences. We analysed the efficacy of treatments by comparing primary and specialised care in the different fibromyalgia groups and there were no significant differences. The variables of the studies that affected the improvements in the efficacy of fibromyalgia treatment were low quality of the studies and a shorter duration of treatment. However, both factors were biased by the heterogeneity of the studies. Other variables that also improved outcome and were not biased by the heterogeneity of the studies, were younger age of the patients and shorter duration of the disorder. On the contrary, gender and type of treatment (pharmacological vs. psychological) did not affect outcome. Conclusion: Based on this meta-analysis and despite the heterogeneity of specialised care studies and of the other limitations described in this article, treating fibromyalgia in specialised care offers no clear advantages.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/ar2455

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garcia-Campayo, J., Magdalena, J., Magallón, R., Fernández-García, E., Salas, M., & Andrés, E.
Affiliations
Universidad de Zaragoza (ES)
Venue
Arthritis Research & Therapy
Published
2008-07-15
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
R81-R81
ISSN
1478-6354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978838638
Cited by
76
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Arthritis Research & Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
fibromyalgia, treatment efficacy, primary care, specialist care, pharmacotherapy, non-pharmacological treatment, psychological intervention, treatment duration, study quality, patient age, disease duration, gender differences, effect size comparison, chronic pain management, women with chronic pain
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Fibromyalgia, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Family, Specialization, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review