SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Nutritional supplements for migraine prevention: evaluating evidence sufficiency and effect modifiers through network meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and meta-regression.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This network meta-analysis (NMA) integrated trial sequential analysis (TSA) limited to eligible direct pairwise comparisons and network meta-regression to compare efficacy and safety of nutritional supplements for migraine prevention, assess evidence maturity and identify potential effect modifiers. Methods: We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nutritional supplements for adult migraineurs from four databases up to January 2025. Primary outcomes were migraine frequency, duration and severity; adverse events were the secondary outcome. Frequentist random-effects NMA calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous indicators and odds ratios (OR) for adverse events with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Treatment rankings were assessed using rank probabilities and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve but were interpreted as exploratory. Inconsistency was tested where network structure allowed valid evaluation. Network meta-regression detected between-study heterogeneity, TSA was restricted to eligible direct pairwise comparisons and the CINeMA framework evaluated overall evidence certainty. Results: Fourteen RCTs (791 participants) formed a six-node network: vitamins, magnesium, coenzyme Q10, probiotics, vitamin-probiotic combinations and placebo. For migraine frequency, probiotics produced the largest frequency reduction vs. placebo (MD = -2.60 attacks/month, 95% CI - 3.96 to -1.20; 72% top-rank probability), followed by vitamin-probiotics (MD = -1.92, 95% CI: -3.12 to -0.73), coenzyme Q10 (MD = -1.91, 95% CI: -2.51 to -1.00) and vitamins (MD = -1.85, 95% CI: -2.65 to -1.05). Magnesium showed non-significant benefits (MD = -0.82, 95% CI - 2.03 to 0.13), and no active supplements differed statistically from each other. No intervention significantly shortened migraine duration; vitamin-probiotics ranked first (MD = -4.68 h/attack, 95% CI - 9.76 to 0.15). Only magnesium significantly lowered severity (MD = -3.56 points on the 0-10 VAS, 95% CI - 6.50 to -0.52; 85% top-rank probability). Treatment duration correlated with frequency improvements (coefficient = -0.09, 95% CI - 0.17 to -0.02, Conclusion: Probiotics best reduced migraine frequency yet lacked statistical superiority over other supplements via indirect placebo comparisons. Only magnesium alleviated migraine severity, while no supplement significantly shortened attack duration. Treatment rankings remain exploratory. Large standardized head-to-head RCTs are required for validation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251182820, CRD420251182820.
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.