ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2010
Diagnostic criteria for CADASIL in the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II): are they appropriate?
Review in The journal of headache and pain, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Migraine and the risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease.Current cardiology reports · 2014Review
- Acetazolamide for the prophylaxis of migraine in CADASIL: a preliminary experience.The journal of headache and pain · 2012Article
- Economic evaluation of "pulse dose" radiofrequency in the treatment of occipital neuralgia headache.Translational medicine @ UniSa · 2012Article
- Rapid improvement of a complex migrainous episode with sodium valproate in a patient with CADASIL.The journal of headache and pain · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We reviewed the characteristics of headache in patients with cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), to verify the appropriateness of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition (ICHD-II) criteria. Available data were found through Medline/PubMed using the keyword "cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL)". The search was restricted to studies published in English in the years between 1993 and 2008. We excluded studies that did not report original data on CADASIL and information regarding the presence of headache. We found 34 studies reporting data on 749 patients overall; 387 (51.7%) patients had headache. According to the authors' definition, 356 (92%) patients were reported as having migraine and 31 (8%) as having headache. Of the 356 patients who were defined as migraineurs, 125 (35.1%) had migraine with aura, 7 (2%) migraine without aura, 156 (43.8%) unspecified migraine and 68 (19.1%) had more than one type of migraine. Among the 31 patients reported as suffering from headache, the headache was not further detailed in 18 (58.1%) patients; it was defined as chronic in 6 (19.3%), as resembling migraine with aura in 4 (12.9%), as resembling migraine without aura in 2 (6.5%) and as tension type in 1 (3.2%) patient. In patients with CADASIL, the headache was usually referred to as migraine and mostly as migraine with aura. However, this referral is formally incorrect since the diagnostic criteria for any type of migraine in the ICHD-II require that the disturbance is not attributed to another disorder. For this reason, we suggest updating the ICHD-II in relation to CADASIL. Our suggestion is to insert a new category referred to as Headache attributed to genetic disorder including Headache attributed to CADASIL.
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.