Objective: This umbrella review aims to analyze the effectiveness of exercise therapy for low back pain through an analysis of systematic reviews that evaluate pain reduction, quality of life improvement, and functional outcomes. Methods: This review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and systematic review of review recommendations by searching across PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. This study searched for systematic reviews alongside meta-analyses that evaluated exercise interventions in treating low back pain (LBP). This study included reviews that examined exercise therapy for LBP patients and presented data regarding their pain intensity, disability, and quality-of-life outcomes. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by several reviewers. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Results: This research yielded 88 systematic reviews from 997 evaluated records. Reduction of pain emerged as the primary measured outcome in systematic reviews (81.8%, n = 72), and these studies showed significant improvement rates of 83.0%. The proportion of studies that concluded no change was 9.1%. The most frequently studied exercises were strengthening, aerobic, and mind–body exercises. The reviews reported quality of life improvements in 27.3% (n = 24), but most reviews (68.2%) did not assess this outcome. No studies indicated worsening outcomes. Exercise interventions demonstrated various forms that effectively contribute to LBP management, according to the study results. Conclusions: This umbrella review of 88 systematic reviews highlights that exercise therapy is a safe, effective, and commonly used strategy for managing low back pain. However, key limitations include the low methodological quality of several included reviews, risk of bias, imprecision, limited reporting of adverse effects, and confounding from multicomponent interventions. While there is limited certainty that any one type of exercise is more effective than others, individualized approaches and patient adherence appear to be critical factors in optimizing outcomes.

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has gained attention for its potential to improve health outcomes across various conditions. Thus, the aim of the study was to summarize studies on HIIT to understand its effects on various health outcomes. We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles. The experimental group was subjected to HIIT with or without treatment, while the control group comprised individuals who underwent alternative forms of training or were non-exercisers. Included studies were systematically analyzed for effects of HIIT and cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic, neurological, gastrointestinal, immunological, and survival-related outcomes. Of 336 identified systematic reviews, 133 were included in the final analysis. HIIT was found to confer significant physiological benefits, including improvements in body composition, cardiovascular and metabolic parameters, and mental health outcomes. Studies demonstrated the efficacy of HIIT across diverse patient populations, with comparable or superior effects to moderate-intensity continuous training in conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, neurological, oncologic, and pain-related disorders. Our review highlights the potential of HIIT as a time-efficient intervention for improving health outcomes and managing chronic diseases. However, interpretation of the results should be performed cautiously due to the heterogeneity observed. High-intensity interval training shows promise as an effective strategy for managing chronic diseases among diverse patient populations. Future research should focus on refining HIIT protocols and elucidating their long-term effects and sustainability.

Background/Objectives: Pain and pain-related conditions are considered a global health and financial burden. In order to improve pain management, pain intensity assessment, and pain diagnosis, various biomarkers have been proposed. Since their clinical utility is not proven yet, the aim of this umbrella review is to synthesize existing evidence of all types of pain biomarkers available. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 2 June 2025. Eligible studies were systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining any clinical, biochemical, genetic, neurophysiological, or imaging biomarker related to pain. The screening of studies, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool were conducted by two independent reviewers. Findings were summarized narratively. Results: A total of 49 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. Most reviews were rated as low or critically low quality. Inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, IL-6, TNF-α) reported the most consistent associations with chronic musculoskeletal pain, while neuroimaging and EEG measures reflected central nervous system alterations. Proteomic multi-protein panels demonstrated exploratory diagnostic potential, particularly for fibromyalgia, but lacked clinical validation. Evidence for genetic, hormonal, metabolic, neurochemical, and tissue-specific biomarkers was inconsistent and methodologically limited, supporting mechanistic rather than clinical inference. Conclusions: No single biomarker has achieved clinical validation for chronic pain, but several biomarker classes show promise. Future implications include high-quality longitudinal studies, standardized protocols, and multidimensional biomarker panels.