Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38943062›Full record

ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2024

Headache prevalence and demographic associations in the Delhi and National Capital Region of India: estimates from a cross-sectional nationwide population-based study.

Debashish Chowdhury, Anand Krishnan, Ashish Duggal, Ritvik Amarchand, Andreas Husøy, Timothy J Steiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Methodology of a population-based survey of headache disorders among adults in Latvia.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Debashish ChowdhuryGB Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, New Delhi, India.
Anand KrishnanAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Ashish DuggalGB Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, New Delhi, India.
Ritvik AmarchandAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Andreas HusøyDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Edvard Griegs gate, Trondheim, Norway.
Timothy J SteinerDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Edvard Griegs gate, Trondheim, Norway. t.steiner@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndia is a large and populous country where reliable data on headache disorders are relatively scarce. This study in northern India (Delhi and National Capital Territory Region [NCR], including surrounding districts in the States of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan) continues the series of population-based studies within the Global Campaign against Headache and follows an earlier study, using the same protocol and questionnaire, in the southern State of Karnataka.

methodsThis cross-sectional study used the Global Campaign's established methodology. Biologically unrelated Indian nationals aged 18-65 years were included through multistage random sampling in both urban and rural areas of NCR. Interviews at unannounced household visits followed the structured Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire in its original English version or in the validated Hindi version. Demographic enquiry was followed by a neutral headache screening question and diagnostic questions based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders edition 3 (ICHD-3), which focused on each respondent's most bothersome headache. Questions about headache yesterday (HY) enabled estimation of 1-day prevalence. A diagnostic algorithm first identified participants reporting headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15+), diagnosing probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH) in those also reporting acute medication use on ≥ 15 days/month, and "other H15+" in those not. To all others, the algorithm applied ICHD-3 criteria in the order definite migraine, definite tension-type headache (TTH), probable migraine, probable TTH. Definite and probable diagnoses were combined.

resultsAdjusted for age, gender and habitation, 1-year prevalences were 26.3% for migraine, 34.1% for TTH, 3.0% for pMOH and 4.5% for other H15+. Female preponderance was seen in all headache types except TTH: migraine 35.7% vs. 15.1% (aOR = 3.3; p < 0.001); pMOH 4.3% vs. 0.7% (aOR = 5.1; p < 0.001); other H15 + 5.9% vs. 2.3% (aOR = 2.5; p = 0.08). One-day prevalence of (any) headache was 12.0%, based on reported HY. One-day prevalence predicted from 1-year prevalence and mean recalled headache frequency over 3 months was slightly lower (10.5%).

conclusionsThe prevalences of migraine and TTH in Delhi and NCR substantially exceed global means. They closely match those in the Karnataka study: migraine 25.2%, TTH 35.1%. We argue that these estimates can reasonably be extrapolated to all India.

Indexed as

HeadacheAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultEpidemiologyGlobal Campaign against HeadacheHeadacheIndiaMedication-overuse headacheMigrainePopulation-based studyPrevalenceSouth East Asia RegionTension-type headache

Identifiers

PMID38943062
PMCPMC11212249

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.