Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25501253›Full record

ArticleNeurogenetics2015

Migraine genetics: current findings and future lines of research.

A M Persico, M Verdecchia, V Pinzone, V Guidetti

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurogenetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Artificial intelligence analysis to explore synchronize exercise, cobalamin, and magnesium as new actors to therapeutic of migraine symptoms: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Migrainous Infarction and Cortical Spreading Depression.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania) · 2020
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Motion Sickness: Current Knowledge and Recent Advance.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

A M PersicoChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, and Laboratory of Molecular Psychiatry and Neurogenetics, University "Campus Bio-Medico", Via Alvaro del Portillo 21, 00128, Rome, Italy, a.persico@unicampus.it.
M Verdecchia
V Pinzone
V Guidetti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last two decades, migraine research has greatly advanced our current knowledge of the genetic contributions and the pathophysiology of this common and debilitating disorder. Nonetheless, this knowledge still needs to grow further and to translate into more effective treatments. To date, several genes involved in syndromic and monogenic forms of migraine have been identified, allowing the generation of animal models which have significantly contributed to current knowledge of the mechanisms underlying these rare forms of migraine. Common forms of migraine are instead posing a greater challenge, as they may most often stem from complex interactions between multiple common genetic variants, with environmental triggers. This paper reviews our current understanding of migraine genetics, moving from syndromic and monogenic forms to oligogenic/polygenic migraines most recently addressed with some success through genome-wide association studies. Methodological issues in study design and future perspectives opened by biomarker research will also be briefly addressed.

Indexed as

AnimalsGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMigraine Disorders

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.