ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2022
Comment regarding: what is the efficacy of aerobic exercise versus strength training in the treatment of migraine? A systematic review and network meta‑analysis of clinical trials.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise as an abortive treatment for cluster headaches: Insights from a large patient registry.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Article
- The Nursing Role in the Management of Medication Overuse Headache: Realities and Prospects.Brain sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Woldeamanuel and Oliveira (2022)'s article about the efficacy of exercise in the treatment of migraine, the ranking of the efficacy of strength training (mean difference, - 3.55), aerobic exercise (mean difference, - 2.18 to - 3.13), topiramate (mean difference, - 0.98), and amitriptyline (mean difference, 3.82) using network meta-analysis can mislead readers. First, the inclusion criteria were reported at a monthly frequency of migraine and the end of the intervention, but some article did not meet the inclusion criteria or had data inconsistency. Second, there was an inconsistency in the placebos used in the included studies, which can be problematic in network meta-analysis. Third, all three articles on strength training were rated as high-risk or exhibited some risk of bias. Finally, the effectiveness of this statistical method is questionable for assessing physical activities because strength training, aerobic exercise, and preventive medications can be simultaneously recommended for possible synergistic effects in the prevention of migraine.
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.