ArticleHeadache2013
Influence of random measurement error on estimated rates of headache chronification and remission.
Article in Headache, 2013. 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.
- Deep and unbiased proteomics, pathway enrichment analysis, and protein-protein interaction of biomarker signatures in migraine.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2024Article
- Rethinking headache chronification.Headache · 2013Review
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
objectiveTo examine the potential influence of random measurement error on estimated rates of chronification and remission.
backgroundStudies of headache chronification and remission examine the proportion of headache sufferers that move across a boundary of 15 headache days per month between 2 points in time. At least part of that apparent movement may represent measurement error or random variation in headache activity over time.
methodsA mathematical simulation was conducted to examine the influence of varying degrees of measurement error on rates of chronic migraine onset and remission. Using data from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, we estimated a starting distribution of headache days from 0 to 30 in the migraine population. Assuming various levels of measurement error, we then simulated 2 sets of data for Time 1 and Time 2. The "individuals" in this study were assumed to have no real change in headache frequency from Time 1 to Time 2. The observed variations in headache frequency were those influenced by imputed random variance to resemble typical measurement error or natural variability. Using this simulation approach, we estimated the amount of chronification and remission rates that might be attributed simply to statistical artifacts such as unreliability or regression to the mean.
resultsAs the degree of measurement error increased, the amounts of illusory chronification and remission increased substantially. For example, if the headache frequency of sufferers randomly varies by only 2 headache days each month due to chance alone, a substantial degree of illusory chronification (0.6% to 1.3%) and illusory remission (10.3% to 23.5%) rates are expected simply due to random variation.
conclusionsRandom variation, without real change, has the potential to influence estimated rates of progression and remission in longitudinal migraine studies. The magnitude of random variation needed to fully reproduce observed rates of progression and remission are implausibly large. Recommendations are offered to improve estimation of rates of progression and remission, reducing the influence of random variation.
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.