Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33938248›Full record

Observational studyCephalalgia : an international journal of headache2021

E-diary use in clinical headache practice: A prospective observational study.

Daphne S van Casteren, Iris E Verhagen, Irene de Boer, Simone de Vries Lentsch, Rolf Fronczek, Erik W van Zwet, Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink, Gisela M Terwindt

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Correlation between novel checkmark-only headache diary and productivity loss and medication effectiveness in migraine patients.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Changes in Migraine Symptoms after Ischemic Stroke: A Cohort Study.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis.The journal of headache and pain · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Validation of diagnostic ICHD-3 criteria for menstrual migraine.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Daphne S van CasterenDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Iris E VerhagenDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Irene de BoerDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7261-762X
Simone de Vries LentschDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rolf FronczekDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Erik W van ZwetDepartment of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrinkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gisela M TerwindtDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo determine whether our E-diary can be used to diagnose migraine and provide more reliable migraine-related frequency numbers compared to patients' self-reported estimates.

methodsWe introduced a self-developed E-diary including automated algorithms differentiating headache and migraine days, indicating whether a patient has migraine. Reliability of the E-diary diagnosis in combination with two previously validated E-questionnaires was compared to a physician's diagnosis as gold standard in headache patients referred to the Leiden Headache Clinic (n = 596). In a subset of patients with migraine (n = 484), self-estimated migraine-related frequencies were compared to diary-based results.

resultsThe first migraine screening approach including an E-headache questionnaire, and the E-diary revealed a sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 17%. In the second approach, an E-migraine questionnaire was added, resulting in a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 69%. Mean self-estimated monthly migraine days, non-migrainous headache days and days with acute medication use were different from E-diary-based results (absolute mean difference ± standard deviation respectively 4.7 ± 5.0, 6.2 ± 6.6 and 4.3 ± 4.8).

conclusionThe E-diary including algorithms differentiating headache and migraine days showed usefulness in diagnosing migraine. The use emphasised the need for E-diaries to obtain reliable information, as patients do not reliably recall numbers of migraine days and acute medication intake. Adding E-diaries will be helpful in future headache telemedicine.

Indexed as

HeadacheMigraine DisordersHumansProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairesdata reliabilityelectronic diarymigraineTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33938248
PMCPMC8504420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.