ArticleHeadache2026
Quality of life changes in cluster headache: Convergent validity, responsiveness, and interpretability of the Cluster Headache Quality of Life scale as a patient-reported outcome measure.
Article in Headache, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCluster headache (CH) significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL). We aim to validate the Cluster Headache Quality of Life scale (CHQ) for measuring QoL changes in patients with CH.
methodsIn this multicenter, prospective, longitudinal psychometric validation study, participants, all with chronic CH (CCH), completed the CHQ at a 3-monthly interval alongside headache diaries and general QoL questionnaires (36-item Short Form [SF-36], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], and EuroQol 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]). CHQ's ability to measure changes was validated in three steps following COSMIN guidelines: (1) convergent validity, (2) responsiveness, and (3) interpretability. Baseline scores were used for step 1; change scores for steps 2 and 3 (Δ baseline-follow-up). Twelve correlation hypotheses were formulated and tested for steps 1 and 2. Validity was rated by % rejected hypotheses (high: ≤25%, moderate: 26%-50%, poor: ≥50%). Data were collected in the Netherlands (Leiden, Nijmegen, Heerlen) between 9 December 2021 and 18 November 2024.
resultsFor step 1, 117 participants were included (n = 70 for SF-36/HADS analyses, n = 42 for EQ-5D analyses) and 82 were included for steps 2 and 3 (n = 48 for SF-36/HADS analyses, n = 29 for EQ-5D analyses). At baseline, overall QoL was poor (CHQ: 60.9 ± 23.1, SF-36: 46.7 ± 19.9) and worse in participants with more intense and frequent CH attacks (>CHQ scores: β = 2.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91 to 4.93), p = 0.005; β = 0.27 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.53), p = 0.033). Convergent and responsiveness validity was high (≤25% hypotheses rejected). CHQ baseline scores correlated strongly with the HADS, SF-36, and EQ-5D (ρ = 0.68, ρ = -0.60, ρ = -0.52), but weakly with attack frequency (ρ = 0.27). Change scores correlated strongly with HADS and SF-36 (ρ = 0.51, ρ = -0.56) and moderately with EQ-5D (ρ = -0.38). Step 3 indicated ≤ -3.5 points change as clinically relevant improvement and ≥7.5 points as deterioration.
conclusionThe CHQ has a high validity to measure change in QoL. CH attack frequency influences QoL, but QoL is more strongly correlated with mental health and activity restrictions than attack frequency. Implementing the CHQ may improve understanding of disease burden, enabling more targeted treatment strategies and thus improving overall disease management.
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.