ArticleBMC neurology2025
Co-production and validation of an online resource to support the diagnosis of migraine.
Article in BMC neurology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost adults with migraine never consult their family doctor or receive a formal diagnosis. It is often these people that turn to the internet for healthcare information. Here we describe the development and testing of an on-line version of a previously validated telephone migraine classification interview.
methodsWe co-produced and tested the tool with people with migraine, clinicians, a web-design company and the National Migraine Centre, a UK based charity. We started with an online stakeholder meeting to understand what resources people wanted and any potential obstacles and facilitators to successful implementation. At a consensus meeting we used nominal group technique to gain consensus on the key questions to include. We used a 'Think Aloud technique' with people with migraine to explore the performance and acceptability of the questions in the new tool. To validate it, we asked people with headache disorders, including migraine, to complete the online tool before a doctor specialising in headache diagnosed their headache type. Level of agreement was measured between the outcome of the new migraine tool and the diagnosis by the doctor for 100 participants.
resultsAt the consensus meeting it was agreed that the questions for the new tool should be clear and easy to understand and distinguish between migraine, tension type headache, other primary headache disorders and medication overuse headache. For our initial validation exercise the level of agreement between the migraine quiz and the doctor diagnosis for 100 participants was 78% agreement. We made some adjustments to the wording and logic of the tool and repeated the validation exercise with 130 participants; the level of agreement was 80%.
conclusionsDespite a careful development process our on-line tool did not perform to an adequate standard. There is a risk that misclassification could lead to people receiving inappropriate treatment. Any on-line classification tool for multiple headache disorders should be adequately validated before widespread use to avoid risk of iatrogenic harm. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.