Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35927625›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of headache and pain2022

Headache-related circuits and high frequencies evaluated by EEG, MRI, PET as potential biomarkers to differentiate chronic and episodic migraine: Evidence from a systematic review.

Javier Gomez-Pilar, Víctor Martínez-Cagigal, David García-Azorín, Carlos Gómez, Ángel Guerrero, Roberto Hornero

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of headache and pain, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Neurite Damage in Patients with Migraine.Neurology international · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Application of EEG in migraine.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  17. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Javier Gomez-Pilar *Biomedical Engineering Group, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Víctor Martínez-Cagigal *Biomedical Engineering Group, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
David García-AzorínHeadache Unit, Neurology Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Ramón y Cajal 3, 47003, Valladolid, Spain. dgazorin@ucm.es.
Carlos GómezBiomedical Engineering Group, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Ángel GuerreroHeadache Unit, Neurology Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Ramón y Cajal 3, 47003, Valladolid, Spain.
Roberto HorneroBiomedical Engineering Group, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Universidad de Valladolid · ESBiomedical Research Networking Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine · ESHospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid · ES

Funding

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PDC2021-120775-I00Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PID2020-115468RB-I00Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación RTC2019-007350-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe diagnosis of migraine is mainly clinical and self-reported, which makes additional examinations unnecessary in most cases. Migraine can be subtyped into chronic (CM) and episodic (EM). Despite the very high prevalence of migraine, there are no evidence-based guidelines for differentiating between these subtypes other than the number of days of migraine headache per month. Thus, we consider it timely to perform a systematic review to search for physiological evidence from functional activity (as opposed to anatomical structure) for the differentiation between CM and EM, as well as potential functional biomarkers. For this purpose, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and PubMed databases were screened.

findingsAmong the 24 studies included in this review, most of them (22) reported statistically significant differences between the groups of CM and EM. This finding is consistent regardless of brain activity acquisition modality, ictal stage, and recording condition for a wide variety of analyses. That speaks for a supramodal and domain-general differences between CM and EM that goes beyond a differentiation based on the days of migraine per month. Together, the reviewed studies demonstrates that electro- and magneto-physiological brain activity (M/EEG), as well as neurovascular and metabolic recordings from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), show characteristic patterns that allow to differentiate between CM and EM groups.

conclusionsAlthough a clear brain activity-based biomarker has not yet been identified to distinguish these subtypes of migraine, research is approaching headache specialists to a migraine diagnosis based not only on symptoms and signs reported by patients. Future studies based on M/EEG should pay special attention to the brain activity in medium and fast frequency bands, mainly the beta band. On the other hand, fMRI and PET studies should focus on neural circuits and regions related to pain and emotional processing.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersBiomarkersChronic DiseaseElectroencephalographyHeadacheHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyBiomarkersChronic migraine (CM)Electroencephalography (EEG)Episodic migraine (EM)Functional activityFunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)Magnetoencephalography (MEG)Positron emission tomography (PET)

Identifiers

PMID35927625
PMCPMC9354370
OpenAlexW4289815119

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.