SynthesisJournal of neurology2023
Clinical differences between menstrual migraine and nonmenstrual migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of different treatments for menstrual migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2023Pooled it
- Underdiagnosis and impact of menstrual migraine in real-world clinical practice: A real-world survey.Headache · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeApproximately 60% of female migraineurs experience menstrual migraine (MM). Whether MM is a distinct clinical entity with more severe migraine attacks and a worse prognosis than nonmenstrual migraine (nMM) is still under debate. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate clinical differences between MM and nMM patients.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify observational studies comparing MM and nMM patients' clinical characteristics. Quality of evidence grades of the synthesized effect estimates for each outcome were determined following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.
resultsOf 1837 identified studies, 16 were eligible for inclusion. MM patients had more migraine attacks per month (MD 0.65, 95% CI 0.05-1.24) than nMM patients; however, the quality of evidence was "low" according to the GRADE assessment. They also had more headache days (MD 0.86, 95% CI 0.12-1.60) per month, a higher rate of family history of migraine (OR 1.41 95% CI 1.12-1.78), migraine aggravation with physical activity (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.35-1.89), a younger age at migraine onset (MD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.78 to - 0.19), and a higher risk of accompanying symptoms (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.72-3.10) than nMM patients; however, the quality of evidence was "very low".
conclusionsThere were differences between MM and nMM, showing that MM patients have a worse profile than nMM patients, but the quality of evidence is too low to draw definite conclusions on the separation/unification of the two clinical entities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36374351What 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.