ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2008
Meeting patient expectations in migraine treatment: what are the key endpoints?
Review in The journal of headache and pain, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Migraine care in the digital era: social listening insights and neurologists' perspectives from Türkiye.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Prioritising patient involvement in patient reported outcome measures- a PROMising way to improve headache care.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Review
- Variability in recurrence rates with acute treatments for migraine: why recurrence is not an appropriate outcome measure.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Review
- An Evaluation of Medication Prescribing Patterns for Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Behavioral management of headache in children and adolescents.The journal of headache and pain · 2016Review
- The flexion-rotation test performed actively and passively: a comparison of range of motion in patients with cervicogenic headache.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2015Article
- Neurological Health: Not Merely the Absence of Disease: Current Wellbeing Instruments Across the Spectrum of Neurology.American journal of lifestyle medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical outcomes of migraine treatment are generally based on two major endpoints: acute pain resolution and effects on quality of life (QOL). Resolution of acute pain can be evaluated in a number of ways, each increasingly challenging to achieve; pain relief, pain freedom at 2 h, sustained pain-freedom, and SPF plus no adverse events (SNAE, the most challenging). QOL questionnaires help assess the burden of migraine and identify optimal treatments. Pain resolution and improved QOL form the basis of the ultimate target-meeting patient expectations, to achieve patient satisfaction. To achieve this, it is crucial to choose appropriate endpoints that reflect realistic treatment goals for individual patients. Moreover, SNAE can help discriminate between triptans, with almotriptan having the highest SNAE score. Kaplan-Meier plots are also relevant when evaluating migraine treatments. The use of symptomatic medication may lead to the paradoxical development of medication-overuse headache. In general practice, patients should use simple tools for pain measurement (e.g. headache diary) and a QOL questionnaire. A composite endpoint of pain resolution and QOL restoration would constitute a step forward in migraine management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.