ArticleHeadache
Priority acute and preventive migraine treatment benefits: Results of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) qualitative study of people living with migraine.
Article in Headache. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early Improvements With Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Results From 3 Randomized Phase 3 Trials.Neurology · 2025Trial
- Effect of Ubrogepant on Patient-Reported Outcomes When Administered During the Migraine Prodrome: Results From the Randomized PRODROME Trial.Neurology · 2024Trial
- Post Hoc Analysis of Time to First and Sustained Improvement in Weekly Migraine Days Among Patients Receiving Preventive Treatment With Rimegepant 75 mg.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Article
- Cognitive Dysfunction in Migraine: Underlying Mechanisms and Clinical Implications.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Associations between good days per month and migraine-related disease impact in the real-world: a post hoc analysis from the REVIEW study of eptinezumab in chronic migraine.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Observational
- Magnesium supplementation for migraine prophylaxis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Disrupting Migraine Dynamics: A Narrative Review of the Consequences of Modern Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibody Therapies.Neurology and therapy · 2025Review
- Observational
- Symptoms across the phases of the migraine cycle from the patient's perspective: Results of the MiCOAS qualitative study.Headache · 2025Article
- Trigeminal nerve-driven neurogenic inflammation linking migraine to glioblastoma invasion: a literature review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- NeurasitesJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The impacts of migraine on functioning: Results from two qualitative studies of people living with migraine.Headache · 2024Article
- CGRP Antagonism and Ketogenic Diet in the Treatment of Migraine.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is renewed emphasis on including patients in determining, defining, and prioritizing outcomes for migraine treatment.
objectivesTo obtain insights directly from people living with migraine on their priorities for treatment.
methodsA total of 40 qualitative interviews were conducted as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System project, a United States Food and Drug Administration grant-funded program to develop a core set of patient-centered outcome measures for migraine clinical trials. Interviews included a structured exercise in which participants rank-ordered pre-defined lists of potential benefits for acute and preventive migraine therapy. The 40 study participants who reported being diagnosed with migraine by a clinician ranked the benefits and explained their rationale.
resultsStudy participants consistently ranked either pain relief or absence of pain as their top priority for acute treatment. Relief/absence of other migraine symptoms and improved functioning were also prioritized. For preventive treatment, participants prioritized reductions in migraine frequency, symptom severity, and attack duration. Few differences were found between participants with episodic migraine and those with chronic migraine. However, participants with chronic migraine ranked "increased predictability of attacks" much higher than those with episodic migraine. Participants' rankings were influenced by prior expectations and experiences of migraine treatments, which caused many participants to deprioritize desired benefits as unrealistic. Participants also identified several additional priorities, including limited side-effects and reliable treatment efficacy in both acute and preventive treatments.
conclusionThe results showed the participants prioritized treatment benefits aligned with existing core clinical outcomes used in migraine research, but also valued benefits that are not typically assessed, such as predictability. Participants also deprioritized important benefits when they believed treatment was unlikely to deliver those outcomes.
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.