ArticleJournal of neurology2010
Imaging results in a consecutive series of 530 new patients in the Birmingham Headache Service.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medication-Overuse Headache: Update on Management.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The impact of headache disorders: a prospective analysis of headache referrals to outpatient and inpatient neurology and emergency services in an Irish University teaching hospital.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Imaging in headache disorders.Australian prescriber · 2022Review
- Headache neuroimaging: A survey of current practice, barriers, and facilitators to optimal use.Headache · 2022Article
- Updates in the Diagnostic Approach of Headache.Current pain and headache reports · 2021Review
- Nontraumatic Headache in Adult Emergency Patients: Prevalence, Etiologies, and Radiological Findings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Differences in Outcomes Associated With Individual Radiologists for Emergency Department Patients With Headache Imaged With CT: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 25,596 Patients.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2020Article
- Factors Associated with Incidental Neuroimaging Abnormalities in New Primary Headache Patients.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2020Article
- Diagnostic Neuroimaging in Headache Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Psychiatry investigation · 2019Article
- Review
- Impact of early headache neuroimaging on time to malignant brain tumor diagnosis: A retrospective cohort study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Health economic evaluation of a serum-based blood test for brain tumour diagnosis: exploration of two clinical scenarios.BMJ open · 2018Article
- P023. Reasons for headache investigation and findings in an experimental headache center.The journal of headache and pain · 2015Article
- Headache neuroimaging: Routine testing when guidelines recommend against them.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2015Article
- It IS a tumor -- current review of headache and brain tumor.Current pain and headache reports · 2014Review
- Headaches and neuroimaging: high utilization and costs despite guidelines.JAMA internal medicine · 2014Article
- Headache and vasculitis.Current pain and headache reports · 2013Review
- Why do GPs with a special interest in headache investigate headache presentations with neuroradiology and what do they find?The journal of headache and pain · 2011Article
- Should GPs have direct access to neuroradiological investigation when adults present with headache?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guidelines recommend imaging only headache patients with sinister features in the history or on examination. We prospectively collected data on imaging newly presenting patients to a UK headache service. CT and MRI results were classified as normal or showing an insignificant or significant abnormality. Over 5 years, 3,655 new patients (69% female; mean age 42.0 years) with headache disorders were seen. Five hundred thirty (14.5%) underwent imaging with large differences in the proportion referred by each consultant. There were more insignificant abnormalities on MRI (46%) than CT (28%). There were 11 significantly abnormal results (2.1% of those imaged). Significant abnormalities were found in patients diagnosed with migraine in 1.2% and in 0.9% of those with tension-type headache. Significant abnormalities in those suspected to have an intracranial abnormality occurred in 5.5%. This supports the practice of selecting patients with suspicious findings for imaging, rather than imaging all patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20198381What 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.