ReviewWorld journal of pediatrics : WJP2026
Efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for pediatric primary headaches: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in World journal of pediatrics : WJP, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary headaches are common in children and adolescents; however, the comparative efficacy of multiple non-pharmacological interventions remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of different non-pharmacological interventions for pediatric primary headaches using a network meta-analysis.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated non-pharmacological interventions for pediatric primary headaches, from database inception to August 1, 2026. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using Stata 17 to generate network diagrams, league tables, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO.
resultsA total of 16 RCTs involving 820 participants were included. Network meta-analysis showed that, compared with waiting list control (WLC), biofeedback [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.11, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) (-2.04, -0.17)], therapist-assisted relaxation [SMD = -1.06, 95% CI (-2.04, -0.07)], and relaxation [SMD = -0.69, 95% CI (-1.21, -0.17)] were associated with reductions in headache frequency. Headstrong compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM) [SMD = -1.63, 95% CI (-2.95, -0.30)], biofeedback + relaxation [SMD = -1.54, 95% CI (-2.95, -0.13)], and relaxation [SMD = -0.91, 95% CI (-1.61, -0.21)] showed potential benefits in shortening headache duration. Education [SMD = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.72, -0.19)], biofeedback [SMD = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.59, -0.11)], therapist-administered group training (TG) [SMD = -0.78, 95% CI (-1.39, -0.17)], cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) [SMD = -0.76, 95% CI (-1.33, -0.19)], and relaxation [SMD = -0.63, 95% CI (-1.24, -0.02)] were associated with improvements in headache intensity. According to surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values, biofeedback (81.4%), headstrong CD-ROM (80.5%), and education (75.7%) showed the highest-ranking probabilities for reducing headache frequency, shortening headache duration, and alleviating headache intensity, respectively. These rankings reflect relative probabilities rather than definitive clinical superiority.
conclusionsBiofeedback, headstrong CD-ROM, and education showed relatively favorable rankings for specific headache outcomes. However, these findings are exploratory and should be interpreted with caution given imprecise effect estimates and very low certainty of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42842098What 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.