ReviewPain research & management2025
A Review of the Biochemical Diagnostic Biomarkers in Migraine: New Perspectives in Diagnostics.
Review in Pain research & management, 2025. 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.
- A Review of the Biochemical Diagnostic Biomarkers in Migraine: New Perspectives in Diagnostics.Pain research & management · 2025Review
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
Background: The aim of this review was to evaluate studies concerned with substances which can be used as biochemical biomarkers of migraine (MH). Current MH diagnosis is based on the clinical criteria provided by International Headache Society (IHS) in the third edition of International Classification of Headache Disorders from 2018. Biochemical biomarkers could be useful in more precise and differential diagnosis which is important for proper choice of treatment. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) were applied. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched in the recent 5 years. Studies exclusively focused on MH and biochemical biomarkers in adults and children, which can be applied as diagnostic tools, were conducted. Results: Finally, 31 researchers were assessed and discussed. Most of the presented studies were focused on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP), pentraxin 3 (PTX3), cytokines, and markers related to mitochondrial metabolism, making CGRP and PACAP possible diagnostic biomarkers. However, other agents have promising value. Conclusion: Based on the available studies, there are no specific substances which could be proposed as potential, practical, and useful biomarkers in HD. However, a few agents could be promising. The standardization of methodology would help in further investigations. Panels of biomarkers, easily obtained from blood but also from saliva and urine, could be interesting purposes for research in future.
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.