ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2018
Reliability and Validity of the Greek Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meaningful Measurable Quality Outcomes in Headache Management.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies Versus Topiramate for Migraine Prophylaxis: Six-Month, Real-World, Intention-to-Treat Retrospective Evidence from the GRASP Study Group.Neurology international · 2026Article
- Eptinezumab to prevent difficult-to-treat migraine: prospective, six-month, real-world multicenter evidence from the GRASP study group.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Observational
- OnabotulinumtoxinA to Prevent Chronic Migraine with Comorbid Bruxism: Real-World Data from the GRASP Study Group.Toxins · 2025Article
- Effects of Pausing and Re-Initiating Fremanezumab After Continuous 24-Month Treatment for Preventing Difficult-To-Treat Migraine: Prospective, Multicenter, Real-World Data From the GRASP Study Group.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Exploring the professional and personal impact of migraine: a cross-sectional study in Greece.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2025Article
- Validity and reliability of the Greek Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1-GR).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- The correlation between the frequent intake of dietary migraine triggers and increased clinical features of migraine (analytical cross-sectional study from Egypt).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Validity and reliability of the Portuguese version of the modified Migraine Disability Assessment.BMC neurology · 2021Article
- Thai-version Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and factors predictive for migraine-related disability.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2020Article
- Validation of the Spanish version of the migraine disability assessment questionnaire (MIDAS) in university students with migraine.BMC neurology · 2020Article
- Article
- Consensus of the Hellenic Headache Society on the diagnosis and treatment of migraine.The journal of headache and pain · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument for migraine-related disability. Such a tool is needed to quantify migraine-related disability in the Greek population.
objectiveThis validation study aims to assess the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, item discriminant and convergent validity of the Greek translation of the MIDAS.
methodsAdults diagnosed with migraine completed the MIDAS Questionnaire on two occasions 3 weeks apart to assess reliability, and completed the RAND-36 to assess validity.
resultsParticipants (n = 152) had a median MIDAS score of 24 and mostly severe disability (58% were grade IV). The test-retest reliability analysis (N = 59) revealed excellent reliability for the total score. Internal consistency was α = 0.71 for initial and α = 0.82 for retest completion. For item discriminant validity, the correlations between each question and the total score were significant, with high correlations for questions 2-5 (range 0.67 ≤ r ≤ 0.79; p < 0.01). For convergent validity, there was significant negative correlation between the total score and all RAND-36 subscales except for 'emotional wellbeing'. The negative correlation indicates that patients with a lower degree of disability according to their MIDAS score tended to have better wellbeing. Psychometric properties are comparable with those of other published validation studies of the MIDAS and the original. Findings on question 1 show that missing work/school days may be closely related with increased affect issues.
conclusionThe Greek version of the MIDAS Questionnaire has good reliability and validity. This study allowed for cross-cultural comparability of research findings.
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.