ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2024
Neurological and Systemic Pitfalls in the Diagnosis of Cluster Headaches: A Case-Based Review.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unraveling the relationship between inflammation and cluster headache.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo describe different pitfalls in the diagnosis of primary cluster headaches (CHs) with the guidance of seven case vignettes. RECENT
findingsThe question of whether primary CHs and migraines are totally different entities has been long debated. Autonomic features can be detected in as many as 60% of migraine patients. Although some genetic similarities have been found, CACNA1A mutations have not been detected among CH patients with hemimotor aura in contrast to hemiplegic migraine. Recently, functional MRI studies have shown that the left thalamic network was the most discriminative MRI feature in distinguishing migraine from CH patients. Compared to migraine, CH patients showed decreased functional interaction between the left thalamus and cortical areas mediating interception and sensory integration. However, clinically the most significant feature had been the restlessness and agitation seen during headache attacks patients with CHs. This feature is also important in distinguishing cluster patients from other patients having other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias except for a subset of patients with hemicrania continua. CH is an important member of the group of headache disorders characterized by their association with one or more autonomic features in the trigeminal nerve distribution and termed Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias (TACs). Although CH is a relatively rare condition, judged by the distress it generally causes to the affected individual, early diagnosis and institution of appropriate therapy seem mandatory. Correct diagnosis of CHs needs avoidance of pitfalls. Such pitfalls generally include differentiation from migraine, differentiation from other side locked headache disorders, from other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs), and lastly, recognition of rare presentations of cluster-like manifestations with hemiplegic aura and simulating trigeminal and glossopharyngeal neuralgias. Differentiation between primary and symptomatic CHs related to sellar pathologies and systemic medical conditions is of equal importance. In the present review such issues are discussed with the assistance of seven case vignettes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39432226What 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.