Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33520413›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2020

Sphenopalatine ganglion block in primary headaches: An American Headache Society member survey.

John G Burkett, Matthew S Robbins, Carrie E Robertson, Mihriye Mete, Nicolas P Saikali, Rashmi B Halker Singh, Jessica Ailani

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Endoscopic transnasal sphenopalatine ganglion block for chronic craniofacial pain.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John G BurkettDepartment of Neurology (JGB), Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (MSR), Weill Cornell Medical College, Bronx, New York; Department of Neurology (CER), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Medstar Health Research Institute (MM), Georgetown University Washington DC; Dent Neurologic Institute (NPS), Amherst, NY; Department of Neurology (RBHS), Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; and Medstar Health Research Institute (JA), Georgetown University Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0002-3562-2796
Matthew S RobbinsDepartment of Neurology (JGB), Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (MSR), Weill Cornell Medical College, Bronx, New York; Department of Neurology (CER), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Medstar Health Research Institute (MM), Georgetown University Washington DC; Dent Neurologic Institute (NPS), Amherst, NY; Department of Neurology (RBHS), Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; and Medstar Health Research Institute (JA), Georgetown University Washington, DC.
Carrie E RobertsonDepartment of Neurology (JGB), Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (MSR), Weill Cornell Medical College, Bronx, New York; Department of Neurology (CER), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Medstar Health Research Institute (MM), Georgetown University Washington DC; Dent Neurologic Institute (NPS), Amherst, NY; Department of Neurology (RBHS), Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; and Medstar Health Research Institute (JA), Georgetown University Washington, DC.
Mihriye MeteDepartment of Neurology (JGB), Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (MSR), Weill Cornell Medical College, Bronx, New York; Department of Neurology (CER), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Medstar Health Research Institute (MM), Georgetown University Washington DC; Dent Neurologic Institute (NPS), Amherst, NY; Department of Neurology (RBHS), Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; and Medstar Health Research Institute (JA), Georgetown University Washington, DC.
Nicolas P SaikaliDepartment of Neurology (JGB), Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (MSR), Weill Cornell Medical College, Bronx, New York; Department of Neurology (CER), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Medstar Health Research Institute (MM), Georgetown University Washington DC; Dent Neurologic Institute (NPS), Amherst, NY; Department of Neurology (RBHS), Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; and Medstar Health Research Institute (JA), Georgetown University Washington, DC.
Rashmi B Halker SinghDepartment of Neurology (JGB), Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (MSR), Weill Cornell Medical College, Bronx, New York; Department of Neurology (CER), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Medstar Health Research Institute (MM), Georgetown University Washington DC; Dent Neurologic Institute (NPS), Amherst, NY; Department of Neurology (RBHS), Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; and Medstar Health Research Institute (JA), Georgetown University Washington, DC.
Jessica AilaniDepartment of Neurology (JGB), Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (MSR), Weill Cornell Medical College, Bronx, New York; Department of Neurology (CER), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Medstar Health Research Institute (MM), Georgetown University Washington DC; Dent Neurologic Institute (NPS), Amherst, NY; Department of Neurology (RBHS), Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; and Medstar Health Research Institute (JA), Georgetown University Washington, DC.
Allegheny Health Network · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG), in the pterygopalatine fossa, is a known current and historical target for therapeutic intervention in headache disorders because of its role in cranial autonomics and vasodilation. There remains an overall lack of well-established SPG treatment protocols, particularly with the advent of newer commercial devices.

methodsA 22 multiple-choice question survey was created to evaluate clinical practice patterns with SPG block and sent to members of the American Headache Society (AHS). Questions focused on determining indications, preferred applicators, medications applied, perceived efficacy, tolerability, and reimbursement.

resultsOne hundred seventy-two of 1,346 (12.8%) AHS members participated. Ninety-three respondents (56.3%) had performed SPG blocks on 50 or fewer patients. The SphenoCath (42.4%) and the Tx360 (41.8%) were the most common methods of application. Ease of use was the top reason for provider preference in applicator type. SPG blocks were mostly used as an as-needed one-time procedure. When a scheduled protocol was used, twice weekly for 6 weeks was most common. Chronic migraine was the most commonly treated headache disorder and rated the most likely to respond to SPG block. Experienced clinicians found SPG more helpful as a stand-alone treatment and tended to report that acute relief was not predictive of enduring response.

conclusionsThe variety of responses strongly suggests that clinicians would benefit from formalized protocols for SPG blocks. More experienced clinicians may have developed individualized protocols that they feel are more effective. The lack of evidence-based protocols contribute to clinicians not performing SPG blocks more frequently.

Identifiers

PMID33520413
PMCPMC7837428
OpenAlexW2995429240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.