SynthesisHead & face medicine2025
Ultrasound-guided greater occipital nerve block for chronic migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Head & face medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided greater occipital nerve block (US-GONB) in managing chronic migraine, comparing outcomes with sham, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), sphenopalatine ganglion block (SPG), and combination interventions.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted until February 5, 2025. Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies assessing the efficacy and safety of US-GONB in migraine patients. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analyses utilized RevMan 5.4, reporting mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), applying random- or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity.
resultsSix studies (n = 344) were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort. Compared to sham, US-GONB significantly reduced pain intensity (MD: –3.57 points, 95% CI: [–3.95, –3.19]), monthly headache days (MD: –12.12 days, 95% CI: [–13.95, –10.29]), and analgesic use (MD: –2.05 analgesics, 95% CI: [–2.48, –1.62]). Efficacy relative to PRF was comparable; outcomes improved when PRF was added. SPG often showed superior results in head-to-head comparisons. Dizziness was the most frequent adverse event (38.9%), with serious complications being rare.
conclusionsUS-GONB may be a well-tolerated, minimally invasive treatment for chronic migraine, particularly when pharmacologic strategies fail. It offers clinically meaningful improvements over sham but shows variable efficacy against active comparators. Some studies indicate potential synergistic effects with PRF. Limitations include small sample sizes and methodological heterogeneity, warranting larger standardized RCTs to inform clinical guidelines.
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.