ArticleEthiopian journal of health sciences2016
Validation of The 3-Question Headache Screen in The Diagnosis of Migraine in Nigeria.
Article in Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The diagnostic accuracy of headache measurement instruments: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2019Pooled it
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMigraine is a chronic episodic disorder that is still under-diagnosed and undertreated. A rapid diagnostic method is desirable so that treatment can be initiated early. We compared the 3-question headache screen with the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria in the diagnosis of migraine among Nigerians.
methodsUsing a multi-stage sampling technique, 1513 respondents were screened for migraine using both the IHS criteria and the 3-question headache screen. A statistical comparison of the two diagnostic methods was then done by determination of kappa coefficient, sensitivity and specificity.
resultsThe prevalence of migraine obtained using the IHS criteria was 9.6% (95% CI, 8.1%-11.1%) while it was 8.3% (95% CI, 8.1%-8.5%) with the use of the 3-question headache screen. There was a good agreement between the IHS criteria and the 3-question headache screen (k=0.68, p<0.001). The 3-question headache screen had a sensitivity of 66.2% (95% CI, 58.5%-73.9%), specificity of 97.8% (95% CI, 97.0%-98.6%), positive predictive value of 76.2% (95% CI, 68.8%-83.6%) and a negative predictive value of 96.5% (95% CI, 95.5%-97.5%).
conclusionThe 3-question headache screen is sensitive and specific in making a rapid diagnosis of migraine among Nigerians. Its use is thus encouraged so that appropriate management of the condition can be initiated early in order to reduce associated disability.
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.