Dataset Information

Occipital nerve stimulation for non-migrainous chronic headaches: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Defined as a headache lasting at least 15 days per month, chronic headache is reported by 3% of the general population, and a substantial proportion of them are refractory to current therapies. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a treatment option, but is still considered as a last resort treatment especially because of its invasive nature and the cost associated. Some reviews reported a limited efficacy of ONS for the treatment of migraines, with a high risk of complications. However, results reporting its efficacy and safety on other headache disorders are unclear. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of ONS in regards to non-migrainous chronic headaches.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the use of ONS in comparison to sham stimulation or the best available treatment in patients with chronic headache. MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ECRI Institute Library, WIKISTIM, the Cochrane Library databases, and clinical trial registries will be searched for eligible studies. The review will include adult patients diagnosed with chronic headache excluding migraine. Two independent reviewers will process to the screening of studies according to titles, abstracts, and then full texts. The primary outcome is the overall reduction of head pain severity. The secondary outcomes are rates of reduction in the severity of head pain, headache frequency, and duration, use of medication, impairment, quality of life, healthcare utilization, return to work, and adverse events. Extracted data will include patients' and procedure characteristics, details on comparative treatment or sham, and clinical outcomes. The risk of bias of the studies will be also independently assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools.

Discussion

This systematic review will allow us to better evaluate the potential role of ONS for the treatment of patients with chronic headache that are refractory to less invasive therapies. It will help to determine the degree of safety of ONS. Moreover, it will help to design and conduct future randomized controlled trials focused on patients who may better respond to such treatment.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019121623.

SUBMITTER: Carrondo Cottin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6647252 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Occipital nerve stimulation for non-migrainous chronic headaches: a systematic review protocol.

Carrondo Cottin Sylvine S Gallani Nevair N Cantin Léo L Prud'Homme Michel M

Systematic reviews 20190722 1

<h4>Background</h4>Defined as a headache lasting at least 15 days per month, chronic headache is reported by 3% of the general population, and a substantial proportion of them are refractory to current therapies. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a treatment option, but is still considered as a last resort treatment especially because of its invasive nature and the cost associated. Some reviews reported a limited efficacy of ONS for the treatment of migraines, with a high risk of complication ...[more]

PMID: 31331392

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic migraine is a debilitating headache disorder that has significant impact on quality of life. Stimulation of peripheral nerves is increasingly being used to treat chronic refractory pain including headache disorders. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and adverse effects of occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) for chronic migraine.MethodsDatabases, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trial registers were searched to September 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), other controlled and uncontrolled observational studies and case series (n≥ 10) were eligible. RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Findings are presented in summary tables and forest plots.ResultsFive RCTs (total n=402) and seven case series (total n=115) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results from three multicenter RCTs show that ONS was associated with a mean reduction of 2.59 days (95% CI 0.91 to 4.27, I2=0%) of prolonged, moderate to severe headache per month at 3 months compared with a sham control. Results for other outcomes generally favour ONS over sham controls but quantitative analysis was hampered by incomplete publication and reporting of trial data. Lead migration and infections are common and often require revision surgery. Open-label follow-up of RCTs and case series suggest long-term effectiveness can be maintained in some patients but evidence is limited.ConclusionsWhile the effectiveness of ONS compared to sham control has been shown in multiple RCTs, the average effect size is modest and may be exaggerated by bias as achieving effective blinding remains a methodological challenge. Further measures to reduce the risk of adverse events and revision surgery are needed.Systematic review registrationthis systematic review is an update and expanded work of part of a broader review registered with PROSPERO. Registration No. CRD42012002633.

Project description:BackgroundPeripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been increasingly used to manage acute and chronic pain. However, the level of clinical evidence to support its use is not clear.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical evidence of PNS in the treatment of acute or chronic pain.Study designA systematic review of the efficacy and safety of PNS in managing acute or chronic pain.MethodsData sources were PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, and reference lists. The literature search was performed up to December 2019. Study selection included randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of PNS in acute or chronic pain. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Data syntheses: 227 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis.ResultsEvidence synthesis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies showed Level I and II evidence of PNS in chronic migraine headache; Level II evidence in cluster headache, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic low back and lower extremity pain; and Level IV evidence in peripheral neuropathic pain, and postsurgical pain. Peripheral field stimulation has Level II evidence in chronic low back pain, and Level IV evidence in cranial pain.LimitationsLack of high-quality RCTs. Meta-analysis was not possible due to wide variations in experimental design, research protocol, and heterogeneity of study population.ConclusionsThe findings of this systematic review suggest that PNS may be effective in managing chronic headaches, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, and chronic low back and lower extremity pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of this technique.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Headache disorders (HD) are among the most frequent neurological disorders seen in neurology practice. Because secondary HD are rare, patients' examination is most often unremarkable. However, the will to relieve patients' anxiety and the fear of prosecutions lead to overuse of neuroimaging thus resulting in the discovery of incidental findings (IF) or normal variants that can lead to futile or harmful procedures. Knowing the probability of identifying a potentially clinically significant lesion in patients with isolated headache could facilitate decision-making and reduce health costs. This review aims to determine the prevalence of incidental findings and normal anatomic variants (NAV) on neuroimaging studies performed in patients presenting with headache and normal neurological examination. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:Studies reporting neuroimaging findings in patients with headache and normal neurological examination and published before the 30 September 2017 will be identified by searching PubMed, Medline and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database). Relevant unpublished papers and conference proceedings will also be checked. Full texts of eligible studies will then be accessed and data extracted using a standard data extraction sheet. Studies will be assessed for quality and risk of bias. Heterogeneity of studies will be evaluated by the ?2 test on Cochrane's Q statistic. The prevalence of NAV and IF across studies and in relevant subgroups will be estimated by pooling the study-specific estimates using a random-effects meta-analysis. Visual analysis of funnel plot and Egger's test will be used to detect publication bias. The report of this systematic review will be compliant with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The current study is based on published data; ethical approval is, therefore, not required. The final report of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, findings will be presented at conferences and submitted to relevant health authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017079714.

Project description:BackgroundObesity is widely recognized for its role in predisposing individuals to a spectrum of chronic health conditions. Emerging preliminary evidence points to the potential benefits of low-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (Lo-TENS) in enhancing various health outcomes among those with obesity and associated disorders.ObjectiveThis systematic review was designed to assess the effectiveness of Lo-TENS for managing obesity and its related chronic diseases.MethodsFor this systematic review, we included randomized controlled trials that evaluated the impact of Lo-TENS on individuals with obesity and its associated chronic diseases.ResultsEight trials encompassing 671 participants and spanning three unique populations: essential hypertension (EH), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and obesity were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review. Compared to baseline measurements, Lo-TENS demonstrated a tendency to positively affect blood pressure in individuals with EH and metabolic parameters in those with T2DM. Nonetheless, the efficacy of Lo-TENS in treating obesity is not yet clear when contrasted with a no-intervention control group. When compared with other intervention modalities, three of the trials reported less favorable results.ConclusionsAlthough Lo-TENS did not consistently surpass other treatments or yield substantial improvements, it generally provided greater benefits than the majority of placebo controls. This suggests that Lo-TENS could potentially serve as a beneficial adjunctive therapy in the management of obesity and its associated conditions. However, given the limited number of trials assessed, the elevated risk of bias within these studies, and the scarce evidence currently available, it is too early to reach definitive conclusions. Caution should be exercised when interpreting the current findings. There is an imperative for further high-quality research to thoroughly investigate and substantiate the efficacy of Lo-TENS in relation to obesity and its related disorders.

Dataset Information

Occipital nerve stimulation for non-migrainous chronic headaches: a systematic review protocol.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Occipital nerve stimulation for non-migrainous chronic headaches: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets