Trial reportWiener klinische Wochenschrift2012
Knowledge about and use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological headache therapies.
Trial report in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2012. 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.
- Low health literacy impact on headache diagnosis.Pain management · 2025Article
- Chronic headache patients' health behavior and health service use 12 months after interdisciplinary treatment - what do they keep in their daily routines?BMC neurology · 2022Article
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
objectiveTo analyse knowledge and use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in headache patients referred to a tertiary headache centre.
methodsWe included 114 consecutive patients referred by a neurologist and asked them to fill out a comprehensive questionnaire immediately before their first appointment at our outpatient headache clinic. The questionnaire covered 23 compounds for acute treatment, 21 prophylactic drugs, and 30 complementary and alternative treatments.
resultsThe proportion of patients who knew at least one acute therapy stood at 92 %; 62 % knew at least one pharmaco-prophylaxis and 80 % knew at least one non-pharmacological treatment. Even though 87 % of the patients with migraine had ³ 4 disabling headache days per month, only 41 % had used triptans and not more than 19 % had taken drugs of first choice for migraine prophylaxis for at least 3 months. In contrast, 75 % had used complementary or alternative treatments. Univariate analyses showed several predictors for the use of pharmaco-prophylaxis and non-pharmacological treatment, of which only knowledge about pharmaco-prophylaxis predicted use of alternative treatments in multivariate analysis.
conclusionIn Austria, a significant proportion of patients suffering from frequent recurrent headaches or migraines who are referred to a tertiary headache centre do not know and do not use triptans and pharmacological prophylaxis, while there is obviously broad acceptance and frequent use of mostly questionable alternative treatments. Improvement of primary and secondary care as well as patient education is desirable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23089901What 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.