Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28920448›Full record

SynthesisCephalalgia : an international journal of headache2018

Assessing the impact of headaches and the outcomes of treatment: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Kirstie L Haywood, Tom S Mars, Rachel Potter, Shilpa Patel, Manjit Matharu, Martin Underwood

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Kirstie L Haywood1 Warwick Research in Nursing, Department of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5405-187X
Tom S Mars2 On behalf of the CHESS team; Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, UK.
Rachel Potter2 On behalf of the CHESS team; Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, UK.
Shilpa Patel2 On behalf of the CHESS team; Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, UK.
Manjit Matharu2 On behalf of the CHESS team; Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, UK.
Martin Underwood2 On behalf of the CHESS team; Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1212-20018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims To critically appraise, compare and synthesise the quality and acceptability of multi-item patient reported outcome measures for adults with chronic or episodic headache. Methods Systematic literature searches of major databases (1980-2016) to identify published evidence of PROM measurement and practical properties. Data on study quality (COSMIN), measurement and practical properties per measure were extracted and assessed against accepted standards to inform an evidence synthesis. Results From 10,903 reviewed abstracts, 103 articles were assessed in full; 46 provided evidence for 23 PROMs: Eleven specific to the health-related impact of migraine (n = 5) or headache (n = 6); six assessed migraine-specific treatment response/satisfaction; six were generic measures. Evidence for measurement validity and score interpretation was strongest for two measures of impact, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ v2.1) and Headache Impact Test 6-item (HIT-6), and one of treatment response, the Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire (PPMQ-R). Evidence of reliability was limited, but acceptable for the HIT-6. Responsiveness was rarely evaluated. Evidence for the remaining measures was limited. Patient involvement was limited and poorly reported. Conclusion While evidence is limited, three measures have acceptable evidence of reliability and validity: HIT-6, MSQ v2.1 and PPMQ-R. Only the HIT-6 has acceptable evidence supporting its completion by all "headache" populations.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresTreatment OutcomeHeadacheHumansHeadachepatient-reported outcomereliabilitysystematic reviewvalidity

Identifiers

PMID28920448
PMCPMC6024352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.