Observational studyThe journal of headache and pain2026
Triggers, prodrome, aura, and headache interactions in migraine with typical aura: a prospective deep-phenotyping study.
Observational study 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to prospectively and comprehensively phenotype migraine with typical aura (MwA) attacks, with a particular focus on the interaction between trigger factors and clinical features of the prodrome, aura, and headache phases. A secondary aim was to examine how characteristics of individual phases influence the subsequent course of an attack and to provide data-driven hypotheses relevant for future MwA classification. METHODOLOGY: This was a prospective, multicenter observational study conducted at two tertiary headache clinics. Participants recorded up to three MwA attacks over 12 months using an electronic questionnaire completed within one day after each attack. Data on potential triggers, prodromal symptoms, detailed aura features (visual, somatosensory, and higher cortical dysfunctions), and headache characteristics were collected. Associations between attack phases, including trigger factors, were analyzed.
resultsA total of 90 participants (74% female) reported 144 MwA attacks. Triggers were reported in 82% of attacks, with lack of sleep (36%) and the menstrual cycle (24%) being the most frequent. Prodromal symptoms occurred in 75% of attacks, most commonly neck stiffness (29%) and photophobia (28%). The number of triggers positively correlated with the number of prodromal symptoms (r=0.372, p<0.001). Visual aura occurred in 98% of attacks, with 43% showing sudden onset and 31% presenting as monocular visual disturbances. Somatosensory symptoms were reported in 50% of attacks, and dysphasic symptoms in 40%. The aura preceded headache in 81% of attacks. Severe headache intensity was reported in 62% of cases, while exhaustion occurred in 81%. The presence of tingling, numbness, and dyspraxia during the aura phase was significantly associated with the development of cutaneous allodynia.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that MwA attacks represent a continuous and complex neurobiological process rather than a sequence of isolated phases, in which triggers and prodromal symptoms shape aura complexity, headache severity, and central sensitization. The frequent occurrence of atypical aura durations, sudden onset, and monocular-like visual disturbances in a prospective setting indicates that current MwA diagnostic frameworks may be overly restrictive. A more inclusive classification approach may be required to better capture the clinical heterogeneity of MwA and reduce underdiagnosis or misclassification.
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.