SynthesisThe journal of headache and pain2023
Comparative efficacy of different treatments for menstrual migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
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 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The progress and evolutionary direction of menstrual migraine research: a bibliometric analysis from 1994 to 2026.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Acute and preventive treatment of menstrual migraine: a meta-analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Sex-specific considerations in migraine therapy.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics and social burden of menstrual migraine in Japan: an online-based cross-sectional questionnaire study.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- Framing and Management of Migraines in Women: An Expert Opinion on Challenges, Current Approaches, and Future Multidisciplinary Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Situational prevention in migraine: are we doing the right thing?The journal of headache and pain · 2024Article
- Prevalence, Characteristics, and Treatment Pattern of Menstrual-Related Headache Among Undergraduate Health Sciences Students at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMenstrual migraine is a subtype of migraine disease that is typically more disabling, longer-lasting, and more challenging to treat. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the relative efficacy of treatments for menstrual migraine.
methodsWe systematically searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, and included all eligible randomized controlled trials in the study. We conducted the statistical analysis using Stata version 14.0, based on the frequentist framework. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB2) to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.
resultsThis network meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials with 4601 patients. For short-term prophylaxis, frovatriptan 2.5 mg twice daily had the highest probability of effectiveness [OR = 1.87 (95% CI: 1.48 to 2.38)] compared to placebo. For acute treatment, the results showed that sumatriptan 100 mg [OR = 4.32 (95% CI: 2.95 to 6.34)] was the most effective treatment compared to placebo.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that frovatriptan 2.5 mg twice daily was best for short-term prevention, sumatriptan 100 mg were best for acute treatment. More high-quality randomized trials are required to determine the most effective treatment.
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.