ArticleCureus2024
Development and Content Validity of Cervicogenic Headache Patient Questionnaire: New Tool for Assessing Severity and Impact.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimCervicogenic headache (CGH) is a complicated and common headache disorder that may present itself with cervical spine dysfunction, irritation of the nerves, central sensitization, and muscular tension. Theoretically, this diagnosis should be an exclusionary diagnosis, considering the fact that it requires extended clinical assessment of the cervical spine and an evaluation for other primary headache types. CGH represents a clinical challenge as they habitually present with an array of nonspecific manifestations highly variable among patients. Management of CGHs is properly based on accurate diagnosis and sound understanding of the complaints of the individual. The development of CGH still carries with it a palpable gap in meaningful literature related to really effective assessment tools for the condition. The aim of the current study was to develop and investigate the validity of the content of the Cervicogenic Headache Patient Questionnaire. This questionnaire is designed especially to measure pain intensity, its impact on daily activities, disturbance in sleep, and the overall quality of life in subjects with CGHs. METHODOLOGY AND
resultsThe content validity ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI) have been used to thoroughly examine the content validity. Each item was rated by 10 experts for relevance and clarity. The scale consists of two main parts: demographic information and symptoms. Under the demographic section, the patient is asked for their age, sex, occupation, and any relevant medical history. The Symptom Checklist contains 10 questions concerning headache frequency, intensity, duration, location, and contributing factors, as well as how headaches affect daily activities, sleep, and quality of life. Item-CVI scores ranged from 0.60 to 1.00, and Scale-CVI/Ave was 0.95, which indicates strong overall content validity. The Scale-CVI/Universal Agreement was 0.83, meaning that most items are of high relevance. The clarity assessments resulted in I-CVI ratings of 1.00 for the majority of items. Using CVR analysis, items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10 all had a CVR of 1.00, whereas all the rest ranged from 0.40 to 0.80, suggesting unanimous agreement among the experts.
conclusionThe results underline the strength of the questionnaire in covering all the critical dimensions of cervicogenic headaches, such as pain, daily functioning, sleep, and quality of life. The scores provided by experts for content validity and clarity were high; hence, it is suitable for use as a comprehensive tool both in clinical and research applications.
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.