Dataset Information

Development and Validation of the Cluster Headache Screening Questionnaire.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Cluster headache (CH) is frequently either not diagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed. We addressed this issue by developing the self-administered Cluster Headache Screening Questionnaire (CHSQ).

Methods

Experts selected items from the diagnostic criteria of CH and the characteristics of migraine. The questionnaire was administered to first-visit headache patients at nine headache clinics. The finally developed CHSQ included items based on the differences in responses between CH and non-CH patients, and the accuracy and reliability of the scoring model were assessed.

Results

Forty-two patients with CH, 207 migraineurs, 73 with tension-type headache, and 18 with primary stabbing headache were enrolled. The CHSQ item were scored as follows: 3 points for ipsilateral eye symptoms, agitation, and duration; 2 points for clustering patterns; and 1 point for the male sex, unilateral pain, disability, ipsilateral nasal symptoms, and frequency. The total score of the CHSQ ranged from 0 to 16. The mean score was higher in patients with CH than in non-CH patients (12.9 vs. 3.4, p<0.001). At a cutoff score of >8 points, the CHSQ had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 95.2%, 96%, 76.9%, and 99.3%, respectively.

Conclusions

The CHSQ is a reliable screening tool for the rapid identification of CH.

SUBMITTER: Chung PW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6325359 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and Validation of the Cluster Headache Screening Questionnaire.

Chung Pil Wook PW Cho Soo Jin SJ Kim Byung Kun BK Kim Soo Kyoung SK Lee Mi Ji MJ Choi Yun Ju YJ Park Jeong Wook JW Kim Byung Su BS Oh Kyungmi K Moon Heui Soo HS Song Tae Jin TJ Kang Danbee D Cho Juhee J Chung Chin Sang CS

Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) 20190101 1

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Cluster headache (CH) is frequently either not diagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed. We addressed this issue by developing the self-administered Cluster Headache Screening Questionnaire (CHSQ).<h4>Methods</h4>Experts selected items from the diagnostic criteria of CH and the characteristics of migraine. The questionnaire was administered to first-visit headache patients at nine headache clinics. The finally developed CHSQ included items based on the differences in ...[more]

PMID: 30618222

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the pain intensity of cluster headache through a large survey by comparing it to other painful disorders. Furthermore, to investigate the relationship between maximal pain, autonomic, and other clinical symptoms, as well as demographic attributes of cluster headache.BackgroundThe pain of cluster headache is anecdotally considered to be one of the worst pains in existence. The link between pain and autonomic features of cluster headache is understood mechanistically through the trigeminovascular reflex, though it is not clear if this is a graded response. Links between pain and other features of cluster headache are less well understood.MethodsThis Internet-based cross-sectional survey included questions on cluster headache diagnostic criteria, which were used as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study. Respondents were asked to rate a cluster headache attack on the 0-10 numerical rating scale. Additionally, they were asked if they had experienced a list of other painful conditions such as labor pain or nephrolithiasis; if so they were asked to rate that pain as well. The survey also included demographics, mood scores, and treatment responses.ResultsA total of 1604 cluster headache respondents were included in the analysis. Respondents rated cluster headache as significantly (p < 0.001) more intense than every other pain condition examined. Cluster headache attacks were rated as 9.7 ± 0.6 (mean ± standard deviation) on the numerical rating scale, followed by labor pain (7.2 ± 2.0), pancreatitis (7.0 ± 1.5), and nephrolithiasis (6.9 ± 1.9). The majority of cluster headache respondents rated a cluster headache attack at maximal or 10.0 pain (72.1%, 1157/1604). Respondents with maximal pain were statistically significantly more likely to have cranial autonomic features compared to respondents with less pain: conjunctival injection or lacrimation 91% (1057/1157) versus 85% (381/447), eyelid edema 77% (887/1157) versus 66% (293/447), forehead/facial sweating 60% (693/1157) versus 49% (217/447), fullness in the ear 47% (541/1157) versus 35% (155/447), and miosis/ptosis 85% (1124/1157) versus 75% (426/447) (all p values <0.001). Respondents with maximal pain also had other statistically significant findings: more frequent attacks (4.0 ± 2.0 attacks per day vs. 3.5 ± 2.0 attacks per day), higher Hopelessness Depression Symptom Questionnaire scores (24.5 ± 16.9 vs. 21.1 ± 15.2), decreased overall effectiveness from calcium channel blockers (on a 5-point Likert scale), and more likely female: 34% (389/1157) versus 24% (108/447) (all p values <0.001). Pain intensity was not associated with restlessness, headache duration, age of onset, episodic/chronic status, or the effectiveness of any acute or preventive medication other than calcium channel blockers.ConclusionsCluster headache is an intensely painful disorder, even in the context of other disorders considered intensely painful. Maximal pain intensity is associated with more cranial autonomic features, suggesting a graded response between pain and autonomic features. Maximal pain intensity is also associated with headache frequency but not duration, suggesting a relationship between pain intensity and mechanisms controlling headache onset, but not between pain intensity and mechanisms controlling headache offset.

Project description:ObjectiveTo use 1) newly generated data, 2) existing evidence, and 3) expert opinion to create and validate a new cluster headache screening tool.MethodsIn phase 1 of the study, we performed a prospective study of an English translation of an Italian screen on 95 participants (45 with cluster headache, 17 with other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, 30 with migraine, and 3 with trigeminal neuralgia). In phase 2, we performed a systematic review in PubMed of all studies until September 2019 with diagnostic screening tools for cluster headache. In phase 3, a 6-person panel of cluster headache patients, research coordinators, and headache specialists analyzed the data from the first two phases to generate a new diagnostic screening tool. Finally, in phase 4 this new screen was validated on participants at a single headache center (all diagnoses) and through research recruitment (trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias only, as recruitment was essential but was otherwise low).ResultsIn total, this study included 319 unique participants including 109 cluster headache participants (95 total participants/45 cluster headache participants in phase 1, and 224 total participants/64 cluster headache participants in phase 4). It also found 123 articles on potential screening tools in our systematic review. In phase 1, analysis of the English translation of an Italian screen generated 7 questions with high sensitivity and specificity against migraine, trigeminal neuralgia, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, but had grammatical and other limitations as a general screening tool. In phase 2, the systematic review revealed nine studies that met inclusion criteria as diagnostic screening tools for cluster headache, including four where sensitivity and specificity were available for individual questions or small groups of questions. In phase 3, this data was reviewed by the expert panel to generate a brief (6-item), binary (yes/no), written screening test. In phase 4, a total of 224 participants completed the new 6-item screening test (81 migraine, 64 cluster headache, 21 other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, 35 secondary headaches, 7 neuralgias, 5 probable migraine, and 11 other headache disorders). Answers to the 6 items were combined in a decision tree algorithm and three items had a sensitivity of 84% (confidence interval or 95% confidence interval 73-92%), specificity of 89% (95% confidence interval 84-94%), positive predictive value of 76% (95% confidence interval 64-85%), and negative predictive value of 93% (95% confidence interval 88-97%) for the diagnosis of cluster headache. These three items focused on headache intensity, duration, and autonomic features.ConclusionThe 3-item Erwin Test for Cluster Headache is a promising diagnostic screening tool for cluster headache.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and validate a screening tool to identify patients with a high likelihood for Spondyloarthritis (SpA) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo).MethodsThe development of the SpA Screening questionnaire in Sub Saharian Africa (SpASSS) questionnaire followed 3 steps: The item generation was carried out by a systematic literature review according to the PRISMA guidelines on the clinical manifestations of SpA, interviewing clinical experts and the classification criteria for Spondyloarthritis. The candidate questions were tested in a population of 50 consecutive patients with confirmed diagnosis of spondyloarthritis, in a control population of rheumatic disease excluding SpA and in a group of 200 non-rheumatic participants, randomly chosen in the general population for question reduction and validation. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed to assess socio-demographic characteristics and response distribution for each item. Their diagnostic performance was investigated using ROC curves. For validation, principal component analysis was performed using factor analysis. Referral strategy score for SpA was determined by adjusted Cronbach's alpha coefficient.ResultsMean ± SD age of SpA cases was 41.8 ± 14.4 years, 56% were men compared to diseased controls 60.0 ± 12.5 years, 28.7% men (p < 0.001). 14/20 items showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between SpA cases and control groups. All items were factorable and 6 components were identified. Only the two first components (C1 with 8 items, C2 with 3 items) showed a significant threshold for reliability in detection of suspected SpA with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.830 and 0.708. All validated items of these two components showed the global reliability threshold with α-adjusted Cronbach calculated at 66.9%. The performance for correctly screening SpA was demonstrated with an area under the curve of 0.938 (0.884-0.991) and 0.794 (0.728-0.861) for C1 and C2 respectively.ConclusionsThis validation and item reduction of the SpASSS questionnaire for SpA might identify patients to refer for case ascertainment and will help conducting future epidemiological and clinical studies in the DR Congo.Strengths and limitations of this study• To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in Sub-Saharan Africa based on local data to develop a screening tool for SpA in the population for epidemiological and clinical use. • Referral strategies based on context-specific data are necessary to provide accurate case definition and epidemiological data, thus reducing methodological bias. • In the SpA group, no discrimination was made regarding SpA subtypes, disease duration, activity and severity.

Project description:Cluster headache (CH) is a severe neurovascular disorder and an increasing amount of evidence points to a genetic contribution to this disease. When CH was first described, it was observed that alcohol may precipitate an attack during the active phase of the disease. The alcohol dehydrogenase 4 (ADH4) gene encodes an enzyme which contributes to the metabolization of alcohol and is, therefore, an interesting candidate gene for CH. Two Italian groups have reported association of the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs1126671 located in the ADH4 gene with an increased risk of CH in Italy. In addition, one of the groups found an association between the ADH4 SNP rs1800759 and CH.To perform a replication study on the ADH4 SNPs rs1126671 and rs1800759 in a large homogeneous Swedish case-control cohort in order to further investigate the possible contribution of ADH4 to CH.A total of 390 unrelated patients diagnosed with CH and 389 controls representing a general Swedish population were recruited to the study. DNA samples from patients and controls were genotyped for the two ADH4 SNPs rs1126671 and rs1800759 using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Statistical analyses of genotype, allele and haplotype frequencies for the two SNPs were performed and compared between patients and controls.For rs1126671, the minor allele frequency (A allele) was 32.8% (n?=?254) in controls compared with 31.9% (n?=?249) in CH patients. The minor allele frequency (A allele) of rs1800759 was 42.3% (n?=?324) in controls and 41.9% (n?=?327) in CH patients. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences in allele as well as in genotype or haplotype frequencies between the patient and control group for either SNP. This was also seen after stratifying the patient group for experiencing alcohol as a trigger factor.The data did not support an association of the ADH4 SNPs rs1126671 and rs1800759 with CH. A comparison with previous studies revealed variance in genotype, allele, and haplotype frequencies among the different populations which might contribute to the contradictory results. Although a significant association with CH in Swedish case-control group was not found, ADH4 as a candidate gene for CH could not be excluded.

Dataset Information

Development and Validation of the Cluster Headache Screening Questionnaire.

Background and purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Development and Validation of the Cluster Headache Screening Questionnaire.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets