ReviewCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2005
Pharmacologic treatment of migraine. Comparison of guidelines.
Review in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Migraine management: How do the adult and paediatric migraines differ?Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare guidelines (not the primary studies) for pharmacologic treatment of migraine as to methods of guideline development; recommendations, particularly on triptans; and quality of supporting evidence (with emphasis on comparative studies of triptans versus ergot alkaloids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]). DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed for guidelines on migraine management published since 1990 in any language; in addition, we browsed the Internet for information. STUDY SELECTION: We found nine clinical guidelines on migraine; one guideline, not supported by references, was excluded. SYNTHESIS: Preference for triptans is not well founded and is largely based on comparisons with placebo. Too few studies compared new drugs with established ones (NSAIDs or dihydroergotamine). Guidelines that propose a hierarchy for selection of drugs are opinion-based rather than evidence-based.
conclusionThe current lack of evidence from comparative studies seriously limits development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for pharmacologic treatment of migraine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15986940PMC1479536W2128344885What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.