Trial reportScientific reports2019
The safety and preventive effects of a supraorbital transcutaneous stimulator in Japanese migraine patients.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and cognitive effects of external trigeminal nerve stimulation (eTNS) in neurological and psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Molecular psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Outcomes of transcutaneous nerve stimulation for migraine headaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation versus topiramate for migraine prevention: a non-inferiority randomized trial.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Trial
- Impact of transdermal trigeminal electrical neuromodulation on subjective and objective sleep parameters in patients with insomnia: a pilot study.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2022Trial
- Migraine Management in Japan: Current Approaches and Science Narrative Including an Evidence-based Review.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- Non-Invasive Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Headache.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Neuromodulation in Chronic Migraine: Evidence and Recommendations from the GRADE Framework.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Update on Neuromodulation for Migraine and Other Primary Headache Disorders: Recent Advances and New Indications.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
- Non-Pharmacological Treatment for Chronic Migraine.Current pain and headache reports · 2023Review
- Neuromodulation for Chronic Daily Headache.Current pain and headache reports · 2022Review
- Review
- Long-Term Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation as a Treatment for Ocular Pain.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 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
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cefaly (Cefaly Technology, Seraing, Belgium) is a device that stimulates the bilateral supraorbital nerve transcutaneously. A previous study in Europe proved that Cefaly was an effective and safe device as a preventive therapy for migraine. However, there have been no studies on this device in Asia. We examined the safety and preventive effect of Cefaly for migraine. One-hundred patients were prospectively collected from four headache units in Japan. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 18-75 years of age, migraine with and without aura, and at least 2 attacks per month. A 4-week baseline period was followed by 12-week treatment period. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the number of migraine days at 12 weeks. The secondary end points include the changes of the number of migraine attacks, all headache days, acute medicine consumption days and headache severity. After treatment, a questionnaire survey on the satisfaction of the treatment was administered to the patients. The Friedmann test was used to assess the changes between baseline period and after treatment, and Mann-Whitney U test was used for the comparison of efficacy between chronic migraine and episodic migraine, with and without prophylactic treatment or medication overuse. After 12 weeks of treatment, Cefaly use significantly decreased the number of migraine days (8.16 vs. 6.84; p = 0.0036). Only three subjects (3.0%) dropped out due to the adverse effects; however, no serious adverse events were observed. The compliance of this study was very high at 90.0%. Furthermore, a significant decrease was observed in the number of migraine attacks (5.33 vs. 3.94; p = 0.0002) and the intake of acute antimigraine drugs (8.75 vs. 7.83; p = 0.0166). Cefaly is considered to be a safe and highly tolerable effective device for Japanese patients. Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered to UMIN-CTR(UMIN000033333) on 10 July 2018.
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.