Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34479514›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021

Differentiating migraine, cervicogenic headache and asymptomatic individuals based on physical examination findings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

E Anarte-Lazo, G F Carvalho, A Schwarz, K Luedtke, D Falla

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Interventional neuromodulation techniques for cervicogenic headache.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 11. Cervicogenic headache and occipital neuralgia.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

E Anarte-LazoCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), College of Life and Environmental Sciences, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
G F CarvalhoDepartment of Physiotherapy, Pain and Exercise Research Luebeck (P.E.R.L.), Institute of Health Sciences, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
A SchwarzDepartment of Physiotherapy, Pain and Exercise Research Luebeck (P.E.R.L.), Institute of Health Sciences, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
K LuedtkeDepartment of Physiotherapy, Pain and Exercise Research Luebeck (P.E.R.L.), Institute of Health Sciences, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
D FallaCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), College of Life and Environmental Sciences, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. d.falla@bham.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMigraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) are common headache disorders, although the large overlap of symptoms between them makes differential diagnosis challenging. To strengthen differential diagnosis, physical testing has been used to examine for the presence of musculoskeletal impairments in both conditions. This review aimed to systematically evaluate differences in physical examination findings between people with migraine, CGH and asymptomatic individuals.

methodsThe databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE were searched from inception until January 2020. Risk of bias was assessed with the Downs and Black Scale for non-randomized controlled trials, and with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. When possible, meta-analyses with random effect models was performed.

resultsFrom 19,682 articles, 62 studies were included in this review and 41 were included in the meta-analyses. The results revealed: a) decreased range of motion [°] (ROM) on the flexion-rotation test (FRT) (17.67, 95%CI:13.69,21.65) and reduced neck flexion strength [N] (23.81, 95%CI:8.78,38.85) in CGH compared to migraine; b) compared to controls, migraineurs exhibit reduced flexion ROM [°] (- 2.85, 95%CI:-5.12,-0.58), lateral flexion ROM [°] (- 2.17, 95% CI:-3.75,-0.59) and FRT [°] (- 8.96, 95%CI:-13.22,-4.69), reduced cervical lordosis angle [°] (- 0.89, 95%CI:-1.72,-0.07), reduced pressure pain thresholds over the cranio-cervical region [kg/cm

conclusionThe FRT and neck flexion strength could support the differential diagnosis of CGH from migraine. Several physical tests were found to differentiate both headache types from asymptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, additional high-quality studies are required to corroborate these findings. STUDY REGISTRATION: Following indications of Prisma-P guidelines, this protocol was registered in PROSPERO on 21/05/2019 with the number CRD42019135269 . All amendments performed during the review were registered in PROSPERO, indicating the date and what and why was changed.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersPost-Traumatic HeadacheHumansNeck MusclesPhysical ExaminationRange of Motion, ArticularCervicogenic headacheMigraineMusculoskeletal disordersPhysical testing

Identifiers

PMID34479514
PMCPMC8417979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.