Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37193973›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of headache and pain2023

The temporal trend of placebo response in migraine prevention from 1990 to 2021: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis with regression.

Stewart J Tepper, Jessica Cirillo, Edward Kim, Gil L'Italien, Julie M Tweedie, Kunal Lodaya, Dushon Riley, Farah Pathan, Nicholas Antaki, Brian H Nathanson and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of headache and pain, 2023. 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
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Stewart J TepperGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth Headache Clinic, Hanover, NH, USA. sjtepper@gmail.com.
Jessica CirilloBiohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT, USA.
Edward KimBiohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT, USA.
Gil L'ItalienBiohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT, USA.
Julie M TweedieBiohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT, USA.
Kunal LodayaBoston Strategic Partners Inc, 4 Wellington St., Suite 3, Boston, MA, USA.
Dushon RileyBoston Strategic Partners Inc, 4 Wellington St., Suite 3, Boston, MA, USA.
Farah PathanBoston Strategic Partners Inc, 4 Wellington St., Suite 3, Boston, MA, USA.
Nicholas AntakiBoston Strategic Partners Inc, 4 Wellington St., Suite 3, Boston, MA, USA.
Brian H NathansonOptiStatim, LLC, PO Box 60844, Longmeadow, MA, USA.
Peter McAllisterNew England Institute for Neurology and Headache, Stamford, CT, USA.
Biohaven Pharmaceuticals (United States) · USDartmouth College · USNew England Institute for Neurology and Headache · USOptim Design (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMigraine affects 1.1 billion people globally and is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In clinical trials, treatment efficacy is evaluated by comparing the differential responses in the treatment and placebo arms. Although placebo response in preventive migraine trials has been studied, there is limited research examining temporal trends. This study evaluates the trend of placebo response over thirty years in migraine prevention trials and investigates the association of potential confounders, such as patient, treatment, and study characteristics on placebo response using meta-analysis with regression.

methodsWe conducted literature searches from January 1990 to August 2021 in bibliographical databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). Studies were selected according to PICOS criteria and included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating preventive migraine treatments in adult patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine, with or without aura. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021271732). Migraine efficacy outcomes included were either continuous (e.g., monthly migraine days) or dichotomous (e.g., ≥ 50% responder rate (yes/no)). We assessed the correlation of the change in outcome from baseline in the placebo arm, with the year of publication. The relationship between placebo response and year of publication was also assessed after accounting to confounders.

resultsA total of 907 studies were identified, and 83 were found eligible. For the continuous outcomes, the change from baseline in mean placebo response showed an increase over the years (rho = 0.32, p = 0.006). The multivariable regression analysis also showed an overall increase in placebo response over the years. The correlation analysis of dichotomous responses showed no significant linear trend between publication year and mean placebo response (rho = 0.08, p = 0.596). Placebo response also varied by route of administration.

conclusionPlacebo response increased over the past 30 years in migraine preventive trials. This phenomenon should be considered when designing clinical trials and conducting meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersAdultDouble-Blind MethodHumansPlacebo EffectRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisMigrainePlacebo responsePreventive treatmentSystematic literature reviewTemporal trend

Identifiers

PMID37193973
PMCPMC10189936
OpenAlexW4376871134

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.