Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31735813›Full record

ReviewVision (Basel, Switzerland)2019

A Review of Motion and Orientation Processing in Migraine.

Alex J Shepherd

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Chromatic Induction in Migraine.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  4. Tracking the Migraine Cycle Using Visual Tasks.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    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

1 author.

Alex J ShepherdDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet St, London WC1E 7HX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual tests can be used as noninvasive tools to test models of the pathophysiology underlying neurological conditions, such as migraine. They may also be used to track changes in performance that vary with the migraine cycle or can track the efficacy of prophylactic treatments. This article reviews the literature on performance differences on two visual tasks, global motion discrimination and orientation, which, of the many visual tasks that have been used to compare differences between migraine and control groups, have yielded the most consistent patterns of group differences. The implications for understanding the underlying pathophysiology in migraine are discussed, but the main focus is on bringing together disparate areas of research and suggesting those that can reveal practical uses of visual tests to treat and manage migraine.

Indexed as

migrainemotion processingorientation processing

Identifiers

PMID31735813
PMCPMC6802770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.