ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019
Migraine day frequency in migraine prevention: longitudinal modelling approaches.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
A Phase 2, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of AMG 334 in Chronic Migraine Prevention
A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of AMG 334 in Migraine Prevention
The Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion in Chronic Unilateral Migraine Headache Clinical and Laboratory Assessment .Aprospective Randomized Double Blind Controlled Study
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tracking migraine outcomes over time by age and monoclonal antibody type: a retrospective, single-center, real-world study.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Observational
- Unveiling the Public Economic Burden of Migraine in Argentina.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2025Article
- Anti-CGRP and Anti-CGRP Receptor Monoclonal Antibodies for Migraine Prophylaxis: Retrospective Observational Study on 209 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Secondary Trigger Point Deactivation Surgery for Nerve Compression Headaches: A Scoping Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Deep and unbiased proteomics, pathway enrichment analysis, and protein-protein interaction of biomarker signatures in migraine.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2024Article
- Modeling Monthly Migraine-Day Distributions Using Longitudinal Regression Models and Linking Quality of Life to Inform Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Case Study of Fremanezumab in Japanese-Korean Migraine Patients.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Article
- Observational Analysis of the Costs Associated with Acute Treatment of Breakthrough Migraine Attacks in Medicaid Patients Using Preventive Therapies.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- The Hidden Economic Consequences of Migraine to the UK Government: Burden-of-Disease Analysis Using a Fiscal Framework.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2023Article
- Health technology assessment for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: A position statement of the International Headache Society.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth economic models are critical tools to inform reimbursement agencies on health care interventions. Many clinical trials report outcomes using the frequency of an event over a set period of time, for example, the primary efficacy outcome in most clinical trials of migraine prevention is mean change in the frequency of migraine days (MDs) per 28 days (monthly MDs [MMD]) relative to baseline for active treatment versus placebo. Using these cohort-level endpoints in economic models, accounting for variation among patients is challenging. In this analysis, parametric models of change in MMD for migraine preventives were assessed using data from erenumab clinical studies.
methodsMMD observations from the double-blind phases of two studies of erenumab were used: one in episodic migraine (EM) (NCT02456740) and one in chronic migraine (CM) (NCT02066415). For each trial, two longitudinal regression models were fitted: negative binomial and beta binomial. For a thorough comparison we also present the fitting from the standard multilevel Poisson and the zero inflated negative binomial.
resultsUsing the erenumab study data, both the negative binomial and beta-binomial models provided unbiased estimates relative to observed trial data with well-fitting distribution at various time points.
conclusionsThis proposed methodology, which has not been previously applied in migraine, has shown that these models may be suitable for estimating MMD frequency. Modelling MMD using negative binomial and beta-binomial distributions can be advantageous because these models can capture intra- and inter-patient variability so that trial observations can be modelled parametrically for the purposes of economic evaluation of migraine prevention. Such models have implications for use in a wide range of disease areas when assessing repeated measured utility values.
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.