ArticleRevista de neurologia2024
[Usefulness of spontaneous drawing in the diagnostic guidance of pediatric patients with headache].
Article in Revista de neurologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing the Treatment Gap for Pediatric Headache in Underserved Regions.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Children's Headache Through Drawings: A Narrative Review and a Portrait Gallery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsThe diagnosis of headache in children can be challenging due to its clinical variability and inability to verbalize certain symptoms. The use of drawing has been proposed to overcome these difficulties. The objective was to evaluate drawing as a diagnostic tool in primary headaches. MATERIALS AND
methodsCross-sectional and descriptive study to assess the agreement between the 'artistic' diagnosis of headache and the clinical diagnosis. We consider an artistic diagnosis to be the one issued after reviewing the drawing of the patient that was made by a neuropediatrician and two neurologists who are experts in headache. The clinical diagnosis would be the classic diagnosis made in consultation after a complete history and examination in consultation and was issued by another neuropediatrician.
resultsWe included 132 patients/drawing (61.1% girls; mean age 12 years) with clinical diagnoses of: migraine (59.1%), tension headache (38.2%), and other headaches (trigeminal autonomic and nummular) (2.7%). The agreement between the artistic and clinical diagnoses in migraine and tension headache was 78.5% and 78.6%, respectively when the drawings were evaluated by a neuropediatrician. This agreement was similar for the migraine drawings assessed by both neurologists (76.3% and 83.6%), but not in the case of tension headache (35.1% and 48.4%). The agreement between neurologists was moderate and similar in both types of headaches (migraine: k 0.51; tension headache: k 0.50).
conclusionsHeadache drawing is a useful instrument in the differential diagnosis of migraine. We suggest its inclusion in the initial diagnostic evaluation of headache in children.
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.