Observational studyHeadache2021
Evaluation of the 6-item Identify Chronic Migraine screener in a large medical group.
Observational study in Headache, 2021. 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.
- [CefaleApp: A Mobile Application for Migraine Diagnosis in Primary Health Care].Revista de neurologia · 2026Article
- Review
- Practical Insights on the Identification and Management of Patients with Chronic Migraine.Pain and therapy · 2022Review
- Real-world assessment of the relationship between migraine-related disability and healthcare costs in the United States.Headache · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the 6-item Identify Chronic Migraine screener in a large medical group.Headache · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the 6-item Identify Chronic Migraine screener (ID-CM[6]), designed to improve the detection of chronic migraine (CM).
backgroundCM is often undertreated and underdiagnosed. Survey-based studies have found that approximately 75-80% of people meeting criteria for CM do not report having received an accurate diagnosis.
methodsThis study used claims data of patients enrolled in a large medical group who had at least one medical claim with an International Classification of Diseases 9th/10th revision diagnostic code for migraine in the 12-month prescreening period. The Identify Chronic Migraine survey was administered by e-mail, in-person, or over the telephone to all enrolled patients. A Semi-Structured Diagnostic Interview (SSDI) was administered by telephone by a trained physician. The ID-CM(6) and SSDI classifications of CM status were compared to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of the ID-CM(6) screening tool.
resultsThe analysis of the ID-CM(6) screening tool included 109 patients, with 65/109 (59.6%) positive for CM based on the SSDI. The mean (standard deviation) age of the patient sample was 49 (15) years and 100/109 (91.7%) were female. Using the SSDI as the diagnostic gold standard, the ID-CM(6) had a sensitivity of 70.8% (46/65) and a specificity of 93.2% (41/44).
conclusionThe ID-CM(6) demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and good specificity in determining CM status. The results of this analysis support the real-world utility of the ID-CM(6) as a simple and useful tool to identify patients with CM.
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.