Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205331›Full record

ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2025

Prioritising patient involvement in patient reported outcome measures- a PROMising way to improve headache care.

Lakshini Gunasekera, Jason C Ray, Neha Kaul, Helmut Butzkueven, Elspeth Hutton, Terence J O'Brien

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of headache and pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Lakshini GunasekeraDepartment of Neurosciences, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. gayanthika.gunasekera@monash.edu.
Jason C RayDepartment of Neurosciences, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Neha KaulDepartment of Neurosciences, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Helmut ButzkuevenDepartment of Neurosciences, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Elspeth HuttonDepartment of Neurosciences, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Terence J O'BrienDepartment of Neurosciences, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal management of migraine involves care strategies that reflect what matters most to patients. This usually involves an assessment of treatment efficacy with respect to headache reduction, safety of prescribed medications and overall patient satisfaction and/or improved quality of life. Traditionally, neurologists focus on objective measures such as monthly reductions to headache and migraine days from baseline. This is complemented with various patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to quantify morbidity and treatment effect from the patient's perspective. We present a review of currently available headache specific PROMs to summarise the design, key attributes, response format, recall period and length of questionnaires.

methodsA literature search was conducted using OVID Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library. The search strategy involved: (satisfaction OR patient satisfaction OR efficacy OR effectiveness) AND (disability OR morbidity OR burden OR severity OR impact OR patient reported outcomes OR PROMs OR outcome measures OR MIDAS OR HIT6 OR HDI OR MSQ OR MIG-SCOG OR Eq. 5D OR WPAI OR PGIC OR quality of life or QOL) AND (migraine OR chronic migraine OR headache OR primary headache OR cephalalgia OR headache disorder). A total of 16,024 articles returned. Removal of duplicates (n = 111), title and abstract screening (n = 15,853) and subsequent full text analysis (n = 19), left 41 articles. Reviewer comments led to addition of further 3 articles to our review. In total, of 44 included articles there were 20 headache-specific PROMs analysed. RESULTS AND

conclusionOur findings show that there is a significant lack of patient involvement in creation of headache PROMs thus there may be a gap between perceived treatment efficacy from the perspective of neurologists and that of patients. We suggest future assessment of migraine treatment efficacy considers what is important to the patient as a priority, in an effort to improve satisfaction with care.

Indexed as

HeadachePatient ParticipationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansMigraine DisordersPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeHeadacheMigrainePatient-reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID40205331
PMCPMC11983965

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.