ReviewHeadache2013
Rethinking headache chronification.
Review in Headache, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Extracranial Trigger Site Surgery for Migraine: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis on Elimination of Headache Symptoms.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Mapping Review on Characteristics of Publications on Modifiable Psychosocial Factors in Headache Diseases.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Results from TRIUMPH [EUROPE], a Real-World Observational Study on the 3-Month Effectiveness of Galcanezumab Versus Traditional Oral Migraine Preventive Medications.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Deep and unbiased proteomics, pathway enrichment analysis, and protein-protein interaction of biomarker signatures in migraine.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2024Article
- Continuous updating of individual headache forecasting models using Bayesian methods.Headache · 2021Observational
- Neuroimaging features of whole-brain functional connectivity predict attack frequency of migraine.Human brain mapping · 2020Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache.The journal of headache and pain · 2016Article
- Rounding behavior in the reporting of headache frequency complicates headache chronification research.Headache · 2013Article
- Influence of random measurement error on estimated rates of headache chronification and remission.Headache · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this series is to examine several threats to the interpretation of headache chronification studies that arise from methodological issues. The study of headache chronification has extensively used longitudinal designs with 2 or more measurement occasions. Unfortunately, application of these designs, when combined with the common practice of extreme score selection as well as the extant challenges in measuring headache frequency rates (eg, unreliability, regression to the mean), induces substantive threats to accurate interpretation of findings. Partitioning the amount of observed variance in rates of chronification and remission attributable to regression artifacts is a critical yet previously overlooked step to learning more about headache as a potentially progressive disease. In this series on rethinking headache chronification, we provide an overview of methodological issues in this area (this paper), highlight the influence of rounding error on estimates of headache frequency (second paper), examine the influence of random error and regression artifacts on estimates of chronification and remission (third paper), and consider future directions for this line of research (fourth paper).
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.