ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Clinical features, risk factors, and a nomogram for predicting refractory cervicogenic headache: a retrospective multivariate analysis.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. 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.
- Combined ultrasound-guided C2 DRG pulsed radiofrequency and suboccipital myofascial plane block for cervicogenic headache: a retrospective study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Given the intricate nature and varied symptoms of cervicogenic headache, its treatment can be challenging, potentially leading to refractory cervicogenic headache. We aimed to identify risk factors that could help predict the development of refractory cervicogenic headache in patients with cervicogenic headache. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with cervicogenic headache between January 1, 2022 and March 1, 2024 who underwent greater occipital nerve block. Data were collected by reviewing patients' medical records and pain questionnaires. Covariates were selected using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. A predictive nomogram model was developed to predict the unresponsiveness of the greater occipital nerves to anesthetic blockade. Results: Of the 82 patients studied, 46 experienced relief from headache following greater occipital nerve blocks, whereas 36 did not. In a multivariate analysis of patients with refractory cervicogenic headache, factors such as C2-C3 sensory loss [odds ratio (OR) = 13.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-118.54], bilateral headache (OR = 7.99, 95% CI: 1.36-47.07), having two or more types of pain sources (OR = 5.51, 95% CI: 1.01-30.16), and limited cervical range of motion (>1) (OR = 13.05, 95% CI: 2.28-74.59) were identified as major prognostic indicators of unresponsiveness to greater occipital nerve blocks in cases of large occipital and cervical spine-related factors. Conclusion: Patients with severely limited cervical spine mobility, bilateral headaches, and C2-C3 sensory loss may not respond well to greater and lesser occipital nerve block therapy. Pain originating from multiple sources is typically associated with less favorable outcomes.
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.