ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2026
Real-world assessment of current migraine prophylaxis in Egypt: a multicenter national study.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesProphylactic treatment plays a crucial role in reducing the frequency, severity, and duration of migraine attacks. This study, the first to address this issue in Egypt, aimed to study the patterns of prophylactic treatment utilization among individuals with migraine and assess adherence to prescribed regimens.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on 200 individuals with migraine. Headache was assessed as follows: type of migraine, duration of attacks, frequency of headache per month, disability using the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and headache severity using a visual analog scale (VAS), and treatment history. Prophylactic treatments were evaluated regarding type, dose, adherence using Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) and efficacy using monthly migraine days (MMD) as well as adherence predictors were assessed.
resultsIn our cohort, the median age was 32 years, with women comprising 70.6% of the cohort. For abortive treatment, paracetamol was the most prescribed medication (42%). Regarding prophylactic treatment, adherence was low, with only 30.4% of patients maintaining adherence. Multivariate regression analysis identified the use of antidepressants as an independent predictor of adherence. 83.3% of patients received monotherapy, with antiepileptic drugs being the most prescribed (40%). Notably, polytherapy regimens demonstrated statistically significant superiority in reducing headache duration, MMD, VAS scores, and MIDAS scores (P < 0.001).
conclusionNon-adherence to prophylactic medication is prevalent among individuals with migraine in Egypt. The severity of migraine attacks is lower in patients receiving polytherapy regimens; however, using antidepressants as prophylactic treatment of migraine is positively associated with treatment adherence.
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.