SynthesisArquivos de neuro-psiquiatria2023
Validation studies on migraine diagnostic tools for use in nonclinical settings: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Migraine 1-2-3-4-5: a candidate communication aid for adult migraine without aura.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- Co-production and validation of an online resource to support the diagnosis of migraine.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Introduction of a classification interview for post-traumatic headache after concussion.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- Australian Headache Epidemiology Data (AHEAD): a pilot study to assess sampling and engagement methodology for a nationwide population-based survey.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Article
- Healthcare utilisation and economic burden of migraines among bank employees in China: a probabilistic modelling study.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Article
- Employees of the banking sector in Guizhou Province in China: prevalence of migraine, symptoms, disability and occupational risk factors.The journal of headache and pain · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMigraine underdiagnosis and undertreatment are so widespread, that hence is essential to diagnose migraine sufferers in nonclinical settings. A systematic review of validation studies on migraine diagnostic tools applicable to nonclinical settings can help researchers and practitioners in tool selection decisions.
objectiveTo systematically review and critically assess published validation studies on migraine diagnostic tools for use in nonclinical settings, as well as to describe their diagnostic performance.
methodsA multidisciplinary workgroup followed transparent and systematic procedures to collaborate on this work. PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for studies up to January 17, 2022. The QUADAS-2 was employed to assess methodological quality, and the quality thresholds adopted by the Global Burden Disease study were used to tail signaling questions.
resultsFrom 7,214 articles identified, a total of 27 studies examining 19 tools were eligible for inclusion. There has been no high-quality evidence to support any tool for use of migraine diagnosis in nonclinical settings. The diagnostic accuracy of the ID-migraine, structured headache and HARDSHIP questionnaires have been supported by moderate-quality evidence, with sensitivity and specificity above 70%. Of them, the HARDSHIP questionnaire has been the most extensively validated. The remaining 16 tools have provided poor-quality evidence for migraine diagnosis in nonclinical populations.
conclusionsUp till now, the HARDSHIP questionnaire is the optimal choice for diagnosing migraine in nonclinical settings, with satisfactory diagnostic accuracy supported by moderate methodological quality. This work reveals the crucial next step, which is further high-quality validation studies in diverse nonclinical population groups.
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.