Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31168803›Full record

Observational studyHeadache2019

Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ).

Ariane K Kawata, Asha Hareendran, Shannon Shaffer, Sally Mannix, Andrew Thach, Pooja Desai, Daniel D Mikol, Brian Ortmeier, Martha Bayliss, Dawn C Buse

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Headache, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ariane K KawataEvidera, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Asha HareendranEvidera, London, UK.
Shannon ShafferEvidera, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sally MannixEvidera, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Andrew ThachAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Pooja DesaiAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Daniel D MikolAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Brian OrtmeierAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Martha BaylissOptum, Lincoln, RI, USA.
Dawn C BuseDepartment of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Amgen (United States) · USIthaka Harbors · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USEVRAZ (United Kingdom) · GBOptum (United States) · US

Funding

Amgen Inc.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMigraine is a chronic neurologic disease that can be associated with significant migraine-related impact, disability, and burden. Patient-reported outcome measures (PRO) are included in clinical trials of migraine interventions to capture treatment effects from a patient perspective. Clinical and regulatory guidelines also encourage use of PROs in trials. The Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ) is a novel PRO measure, assessing the impact of migraine on Physical Function (PF), Usual Activities (UA), Social Function (SF), and Emotional Function (EF), in the past 7 days. Scientific methods recommended to meet the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were followed, to ensure that the MFIQ content included outcomes that were relevant to adults with migraine and were clinically relevant, specifically to evaluate preventive treatments for migraine.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to conduct item analyses informing item reduction and scoring, and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MFIQ.

methodsIn a prospective, observational study, adults with migraine completed the MFIQ as well as additional clinical and PRO instruments, including the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6

resultsThe study enrolled 569 adults with migraine. Subjects had an average age of 39.9 years (SD 12.0), 87.2% were female, and 80.8% were white. Five items were dropped from the draft version based on results of item-level analyses reviewed in the context of previous qualitative research to produce the final 26-item MFIQ (v.2). Four domain scores (PF, UA, SF, and EF) and a global item score for impact on UA were identified. Higher scores on a 0-100 scale represent greater impact. All scores exhibited high internal consistency (α ≥ 0.89) and moderate test-retest reliability among stable subjects (ICCs ≥ 0.47). Construct validity was demonstrated by significant correlations (all P < .0001) between MFIQ domain scores, related PRO scores, and the frequency of migraine days and headache days. All domain scores differentiated between subgroups ("known groups") defined based on established levels of clinical severity: number of monthly migraine and headache days, migraine interference levels and scores on other PRO instruments (P < .05). Improvements in MFIQ scores corresponded with clinical improvement (percent reduction in monthly migraine days), improvement in migraine interference with daily activities, and related improvements in PRO scores (P < .05), demonstrating that the MFIQ was responsive to changes in migraine impact.

conclusionsThe MFIQ is a reliable and valid measure that can be used to collect data about migraine impact. The MFIQ is being used to evaluate outcomes of migraine interventions in clinical trials and observational studies. It could potentially also be used in clinical practice both for initial and ongoing assessments for monitoring outcomes and to enhance communication between patients and healthcare professionals for the management of migraine.

Indexed as

PsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMigraine DisordersProspective StudiesfunctioningMFIQmigrainereliabilityresponsivenessvalidity

Identifiers

PMID31168803
PMCPMC6771641
OpenAlexW2965415078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.