ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2025
Introduction of a classification interview for post-traumatic headache after concussion.
Article 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. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMild traumatic brain injury (TBI) can cause temporary disruption to brain function, with up to half of those affected complaining of functional limitations up to 12 months after the initial injury. Mild TBI can cause a range of sequelae, most commonly post-traumatic headache (PTH). The incidence of PTH varies post mild TBI, with up to 80% affected by three months and 60% by one year, with heterogenous phenotypes reported. We aimed to introduce a standardised interview to identify and characterise PTH. The primary outcome was to identify PTH, and the secondary outcome to characterise the phenotype of PTH.
methodsParticipants were prospectively recruited from a tertiary centre hospital and a military rehabilitation centre in the United Kingdom. Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of mild TBI or concussion; normal brain imaging; aged 17 years and older; and head injury within the last 12 months at time of screening. We have excluded those with serious underlying pathology; secondary causes of headache (excluding PTH), and non-English speakers. The non-headache specialist phoned the patient primarily to run through the structured headache interview. Following this, the headache specialist conducted a telephone clinical consultation as ‘gold-standard’. Both interviewers defined PTH as headache developing ≤ 7 days as definite, probable (8–30 days) and unlikely (> 30 days). Cohen’s Kappa estimates the inter-rater reliability across categorical variables. We calculated prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK), which adjusts the kappa value for differences in prevalence and bias across variables.
resultsA total of 194 people were screened and 63 completed paired interviews. The mean age was 26.2 (SD 8.5) years and 19% were female. Most participants displayed a migraine-like phenotype (94%), followed by tension-type-like headache (13%). A very good agreement was demonstrated between the non-specialist and specialist in diagnosing PTH (PABAK 0.90) and differentiating migraine-like versus tension-type-like headache (PABAK 0.83). There was a good agreement for migraine-like versus other headache sub-phenotypes (PABAK 0.75).
conclusionsThere is currently no standardised interview that aids healthcare professionals with identifying PTH and its sub-phenotype. This structured interview can be used to diagnose PTH and its sub-phenotype.
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.