ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2020
Is there a reliable brain morphological signature for migraine?
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spontaneous brain activity abnormalities in migraine: A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging.Human brain mapping · 2023Pooled it
- Gray Matter Atrophy in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Voxel-Based Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Pooled it
- Cortical Thickness in Migraine: A Coordinate-Based Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Tracking tDCS induced grey matter changes in episodic migraine: a randomized controlled trial.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Trial
- Two distinct neuroanatomical subtypes of migraine without aura revealed by heterogeneity through discriminative analysis.Brain imaging and behavior · 2023Article
- Impairments to the multisensory integration brain regions during migraine chronification: correlation with the vestibular dysfunction.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2023Article
- Early alterations of cortical thickness and gyrification in migraine without aura: a retrospective MRI study in pediatric patients.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
- Comparison of brain volumes in episodic and chronic migraine using automated whole-brain volumetry.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is a popular non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging technique to investigate brain gray matter (GM) differences between groups. Recently, two VBM studies in migraine have been published in The Journal of Headache and Pain. Reviewing the two and those previous published VBM studies, we found considerable variations of the results. Spatially diverse brain regions with decreased and increased GM alterations and null findings have been reported. It is interesting to know whether there is a reliable brain morphological signature for migraine. Coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) is increasingly used to quantitatively pool individual neuroimaging studies to identify consistent and reliable findings. Several CBMA have been conducted, however, their results were inconsistent. The algorithms for CBMA have evolved and more eligible VBM studies in migraine have been published. We therefore conducted an updated CBMA using the latest algorithms for CBMA, seed-based d mapping with permutation of subject images (SDM-PSI). The present CBMA of 32 VBM studies (41 datasets comprising 1252 patients and 1025 healthy controls) found no evidence of consistent GM alterations in migraine. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup meta-analyses, and meta-regression analyses revealed that the result was robust. This negative result indicates that there is no reliable brain morphological signature for migraine. VBM investigations in migraine remain a heterogeneous field. Many potential confounding factors, such as underpowered sample sizes, variations in demographic and clinical characteristics, and differences in MRI scanners, head coils, scanning parameters, preprocessing procedures, and statistical strategies may cause the inconsistences of the results. Future VBM studies are warranted to enroll well-characterized and homogeneous subtype samples with appropriate sample sizes, comprehensively assess comorbidities and medication status, and use well-validated and standardized imaging protocols and processing and analysis pipelines to produce robust and replicable results in migraine.
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.