ArticleThe patient2012
Comparison of expected outcomes between patients and neurologists using Kano's methodology in symptomatic migraine treatment.
Article in The patient, 2012. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prioritising patient involvement in patient reported outcome measures- a PROMising way to improve headache care.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Review
- A study on the demand for high-level talent recruitment in tertiary public hospitals in Chongqing based on the Kano model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Investigating Patients' Preferences to Inform Drug Development Decisions: Novel Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Migraine.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- An integrated model using the Taguchi method and artificial neural network to improve artificial kidney solidification parameters.Biomedical engineering online · 2019Article
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
objectivesOur objective was to evaluate the potential usefulness of the Kano conceptual model to assess expectations of patients and neurologists in Spain regarding symptomatic migraine treatment.
methodsWe performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study in adult migraine patients with at least 1 year of disease evolution and at least one prescription of anti-migraine drugs within the last year. Data collection was performed using questionnaires that included sociodemographic and treatment expectations. Using Kano's methodology, treatment attributes were classified as the following: Must-be; One-dimensional; Attractive; Indifferent; Reverse; or Questionable.
resultsA total of 204 migraine patients (mean age 39.2 years [SD 11.9]; 84.6% women) and 68 neurologists (mean age 44 years [SD 8.8]; 63.2% men) were surveyed. None of the treatment attributes evaluated by the patients showed a dominant Must-be feature. Among patients and neurologists, the attributes that led to a greater dissatisfaction when absent and that were ranked as the three most important attributes were those related to treatment safety (absence of long-term adverse effects), efficacy (pain relief achievement), and quality of life (possibility of resuming occupational or academic activities). Differences in attributes' classification were noted among patients and neurologists. The attribute that was considered most important by the patients was achievement of total disappearance of pain, whereas for neurologists the most important attribute was absence of long-term adverse effects.
conclusionsKano's methodology is a useful tool to analyze differences in migraine treatment expectations among patients and neurologists. The main difference between patients and neurologists related to basic priorities. Therefore, when selecting treatment for migraine, physicians should invite the patient to participate in the decision making of which treatment is more appropriate.
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.