ArticleHeadache2020
A Qualitative Study to Assess the Content Validity of the 24-Hour Migraine Quality of Life Questionnaire in Patients with Migraine.
Article in Headache, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Social Life of Migraine: A Meta-Ethnography of Lived Experience in Adults With Migraine.Health services insights · 2026Review
- Comparison of Craniosacral Therapy and Myofascial Relaxation Techniques in People with Migraine Headache: A Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of chiropractic medicine · 2024Article
- Measuring interictal burden among people affected by migraine: a descriptive survey study.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Article
- Real-World experience of interictal burden and treatment in migraine: a qualitative interview study.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Article
- Mapping Assessments Instruments for Headache Disorders against the ICF Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disability.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
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
Abstract
objectiveA concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and usability study was undertaken to: (1) explore migraine symptoms and day-to-day impacts; (2) determine the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the previously developed 24-Hour Migraine Quality of Life Questionnaire electronic patient-reported outcome (24-Hr MQoLQ ePRO) items, and the appropriateness and understanding of the recall period, response options, and instructions; and (3) assess the usability on an electronic hand-held device.
methodsEleven United States English-speaking people with episodic migraine were recruited to participate in one-on-one interviews, which followed methods appropriate for concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and usability testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed following the constant comparative method.
resultsParticipants had a mean age of 42 years, and 8 were female. Through spontaneous mention or probing, all concepts of the 24-Hr MQoLQ ePRO were endorsed by a majority of the participants. Cognitive interviewing confirmed the 24-Hr MQoLQ ePRO instructions were clear, meaningful, and important to assess as symptoms and day-to-day impacts experienced as a result of migraine. Overall impressions of the ePRO device were overwhelmingly favorable, and the ePRO device was preferred to paper and pencil by all participants. Participant responses regarding the level of headache pain that would be acceptable in order to continue to go about daily activities ranged from 3 to 6, on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being "no headache" and 10 being "the worst headache."
conclusionsThe 24-Hr MQoLQ ePRO is content-valid and appropriate for inclusion in future acute treatment for migraine studies designed to measure the symptoms and health-related quality of life of 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.