ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2025
Migraine management in Chinese headache centers: a national survey and the role of quality control inspections.
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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of rimegepant for acute and preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Pooled it
- Methodology and baseline characteristics of the China Migraine registry (CHIME): a nationwide, multi-center, prospective cohort study of 11,814 patients.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Observational
- Addressing the Treatment Gap for Pediatric Headache in Underserved Regions.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Phenotype-guided selection of venlafaxine and topiramate for vestibular migraine: a narrative review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Cost-utility analysis of erenumab preventive treatment for chronic migraine in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of rimegepant as a preventive treatment for chronic and episodic migraine: a three-month longitudinal retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA systematic quality control (QC) inspection system is very important to standardize migraine management. This study assesses the impact of the QC inspections on center operations, guideline adherence, and patient outcomes for an established national tiered headache care network in china, hoping to identify the key improvements that inform national care optimization strategies.
methodsA multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted in China. Lead physicians from 103 headache centers completed a structured electronic questionnaire covering headache consultation capacity, migraine treatment status, comorbidity and disability assessment, and comprehensive management. Centers were stratified by QC inspection status (29 inspected, 74 non-inspected), and outcomes were compared using nonparametric tests.
resultsCenters had a median of 4 [IQR: 3-5] headache specialists operating 4 [IQR: 2-6] half-day weekly headache clinics. Migraine accounted for 40% of the caseload, with chronic migraine and conventional acute drugs resistant migraine comprising approximately 40%. The most frequently recommended acute medications were rimegepant, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen; leading preventive medications included flunarizine, topiramate, and CGRP receptor antagonists. Non-pharmacological therapies were recommended by over 50% of specialists, yet patient uptake was less than 10%. QC-inspected centers operated significantly more clinic sessions per week (median 6 [4–8] vs. 3.5 [2–5] half-days, p = 0.0082), had higher rates of headache diary use (30% [20%–50%] vs. 20% [10%–40%], p = 0.0315), and demonstrated better follow-up rates for medication overuse headache (80% [50%–80%] vs. 50% [15%–80%], p = 0.0131) and higher rates of headache control (70% [50%–85%] vs. 60% [40%–80%], p = 0.0496). These centers also prescribed fewer Chinese patent medicines, and used more evidence-based preventive agents (e.g. galcanezumab, amitriptyline, p < 0.05), and conducted more continuing medical education sessions for physicians (median 5 [IQR: 4-10] vs. 3 [IQR: 2-5] per year, p = 0.0044).
conclusionHeadache centers in China generally provide guideline-adherent care for migraine cases, although access to specific therapies remains limited. QC inspections are associated with improved operational capacity, standardized management, and increased use of evidence-based treatments. Enhancing QC inspections, expanding access to advanced therapies, and strengthening physician and patient education are essential to further optimize China’s headache care network.
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.