ArticleJournal of oral & facial pain and headache2025
A comparison of the clinical efficacy of GON block at the C2 level and GON block at the classical distal occipital level in the treatment of cluster headache.
Article in Journal of oral & facial pain and headache, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of C2-level and distal greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade in the management of cluster headache (CH), focusing on pain relief onset and overall treatment outcomes.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 48 patients diagnosed with CH were divided into two equal groups: one receiving bilateral C2 GON blocks and the other undergoing bilateral distal GON blocks. Both groups were treated with dexamethasone as the steroid and bupivacaine as the local anaesthetic. Pain relief and treatment duration were assessed, and adverse events were monitored.
resultsBoth GON blockade techniques were effective in reducing CH symptoms. Patients treated with C2 GON blocks achieved complete pain relief by the third week, allowing for treatment cessation. In contrast, the distal GON block group required up to six injections for similar levels of relief. Rapid pain control was more pronounced in the C2 GON group, with no significant adverse effects observed in either group.
conclusionsC2 GON blockade demonstrated greater efficacy for early pain relief in CH patients compared with distal GON blockade. These findings suggest that C2 GON blockade may be a more suitable option for both transitional and preventive therapy in CH. Further studies are recommended to confirm these results and to explore the long-term benefits of C2 GON blockade in CH 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.