Study designs of evaluations included in the review
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and uncontrolled studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies were required to be longitudinal in design with pre- and post-intervention measurement of the outcomes. Randomised, single-blinded controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and single-group studies were included in the review.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies of exercise interventions with supervised exercise sessions were eligible for inclusion. Studies were required to include some type of physical movement and, as such, low intensity modalities such as Qigong and t’ai chi were eligible. Studies that only educated individuals on how to exercise were excluded. Most of the included interventions were made up of three modes of exercise: aerobic training, strength training and flexibility, either alone or in combination. Educational and cognitive behavioural components were also included in some of the studies. The number of exercise sessions ranged from 1 to 5 times per week for between 15 and 180 minutes per session, and the duration of the intervention ranged from 4 to 24 weeks.
Participants included in the review
Studies of participants that met the standardised criteria for FM diagnosis at the time of the study were eligible for inclusion. The primary studies also included a small number of control participants with various chronic diseases other than FM and some healthy participants. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 80 years (mean 49.5).
Outcomes assessed in the review
Inclusion criteria were not specified for the outcomes. Studies did not have to have a physical fitness outcome measure. The outcome measures in most of the included studies were one or more FM symptoms (measured using a visual analogue scale, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire or a health status measure). None of the studies used real-time symptom monitoring with electronic diaries.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
One reviewer initially assessed abstracts for possible inclusion in the review. It appears that two reviewers independently selected studies from these possible inclusions. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.