ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2019
Development and validation of a telephone classification interview for common chronic headache disorders.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preventive drug treatments for adults with chronic migraine: a systematic review with economic modelling.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Does pain self-efficacy predict, moderate or mediate outcomes in people with chronic headache; an exploratory analysis of the CHESS trial.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Trial
- Supportive Self-Management Program for People With Chronic Headaches and Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation.Neurology · 2023Trial
- Development of an education and self-management intervention for chronic headache - CHESS trial (Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study).The journal of headache and pain · 2019Trial
- Co-production and validation of an online resource to support the diagnosis of migraine.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Introduction of a classification interview for post-traumatic headache after concussion.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- Research priorities for randomised controlled trials in chronic migraine preventive medication: A stakeholder consensus workshop.NIHR open research · 2024Article
- Reliability of a telephone interview for the classification of headache disorders.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Patient and public involvement in a UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grant for Applied Research: experiences from the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS).Primary health care research & development · 2021Article
- Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic headache: A comparative evaluation of the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6).Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2021Article
- Article
- Investigating the Effects of COVID-19 Quarantine in Migraine: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study From the Italian National Headache Registry (RICe).Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) - a mixed method feasibility study to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor a trial of supportive self-management for people with chronic headache we needed to develop and validate a telephone classification interview that can be used by a non-headache specialist to classify common chronic headache types in primary care. We aimed to specifically: exclude secondary headaches other than medication overuse, exclude primary headache disorders other than migraine and tension type headache (TTH), distinguish between chronic migraine and chronic TTH, and identify medication overuse headache.
methodsWe held a headache classification consensus conference to draw on evidence and expertise to inform the content of a logic model underpinning the classification interview. Nurses trained to use the logic model did telephone classification interviews with participants recruited from primary care. Doctors specialising in headache did a second validation interview.
resultsTwenty-six delegates attended the headache classification conference including headache specialist doctors, nurses and lay representatives (with chronic headache). We trained six nurses to do the classification interviews and completed 107 paired interviews, median days between interviews was 32 days (interquartile range 21-48 days). We measured level of agreement between the nurse and doctor interviews using proportion of concordance, simple kappa and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Proportion of concordance of agreement between nurse and doctor interviews was 0.76, simple kappa coefficient κ 0.31 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.52), and PABAK 0.51 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.68), a moderate agreement. In a sensitivity test following review of headache characteristics recorded, concordance was 0.91, κ = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.79), and PABAK = 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.92), a very good agreement.
conclusionWe developed and validated a new evidence-based telephone classification interview that can be used by a non-headache specialist to classify common chronic headache types in primary care.
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.