Dataset Information

Can physical testing be used to distinguish between migraine and cervicogenic headache sufferers? A protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Differential diagnosis of migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) can be challenging given the large overlap of symptoms, commonly leading to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. In order to strengthen the differential diagnosis of headache, previous studies have evaluated the utility of physical tests to examine for musculoskeletal impairment, mainly in the cervical spine, which could be provoking or triggering headache. However, no systematic review has attempted to evaluate whether physical tests can differentiate CGH from migraine or both conditions from asymptomatic subjects. METHODS/ANALYSIS:A systematic review protocol has been designed and is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). A sensitive topic-based search strategy is planned which will include databases, hand searching of key journals and consultation of relevant leading authors in this field. Terms and keywords will be selected after discussion and agreement. Two independent reviewers will perform the search and select studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, including any cohort or observational studies evaluating the topic of this review; a third reviewer will confirm accuracy. A narrative synthesis will be developed for all included studies and, if possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist for diagnostic accuracy studies and the Downs and Black scale for those studies where the QUADAS-2 checklist cannot be applied. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required since no patient information will be collected. The results will provide a deeper understanding about the possibility of using physical tests to differentiate cervicogenic headache from migraine and from asymptomatic subjects, which has direct relevance for clinicians managing people with headache. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019135269.

SUBMITTER: Anarte E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6858106 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can physical testing be used to distinguish between migraine and cervicogenic headache sufferers? A protocol for a systematic review.

Anarte Ernesto E Ferreira Carvalho Gabriela G Schwarz Annika A Luedtke Kerstin K Falla Deborah D

BMJ open 20191110 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Differential diagnosis of migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) can be challenging given the large overlap of symptoms, commonly leading to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. In order to strengthen the differential diagnosis of headache, previous studies have evaluated the utility of physical tests to examine for musculoskeletal impairment, mainly in the cervical spine, which could be provoking or triggering headache. However, no systematic review has attempted to ev ...[more]

PMID: 31712341

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMigraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) are common headache disorders, although the large overlap of symptoms between them makes differential diagnosis challenging. To strengthen differential diagnosis, physical testing has been used to examine for the presence of musculoskeletal impairments in both conditions. This review aimed to systematically evaluate differences in physical examination findings between people with migraine, CGH and asymptomatic individuals.MethodsThe databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE were searched from inception until January 2020. Risk of bias was assessed with the Downs and Black Scale for non-randomized controlled trials, and with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. When possible, meta-analyses with random effect models was performed.ResultsFrom 19,682 articles, 62 studies were included in this review and 41 were included in the meta-analyses. The results revealed: a) decreased range of motion [°] (ROM) on the flexion-rotation test (FRT) (17.67, 95%CI:13.69,21.65) and reduced neck flexion strength [N] (23.81, 95%CI:8.78,38.85) in CGH compared to migraine; b) compared to controls, migraineurs exhibit reduced flexion ROM [°] (- 2.85, 95%CI:-5.12,-0.58), lateral flexion ROM [°] (- 2.17, 95% CI:-3.75,-0.59) and FRT [°] (- 8.96, 95%CI:-13.22,-4.69), reduced cervical lordosis angle [°] (- 0.89, 95%CI:-1.72,-0.07), reduced pressure pain thresholds over the cranio-cervical region [kg/cm2], reduced neck extension strength [N] (- 11.13, 95%CI:-16.66,-5.6) and increased activity [%] of the trapezius (6.18, 95%CI:2.65,9.71) and anterior scalene muscles (2.87, 95%CI:0.81,4.94) during performance of the cranio-cervical flexion test; c) compared to controls, CGH patients exhibit decreased neck flexion (- 33.70, 95%CI:-47.23,-20.16) and extension (- 55.78, 95%CI:-77.56,-34.00) strength [N].ConclusionThe FRT and neck flexion strength could support the differential diagnosis of CGH from migraine. Several physical tests were found to differentiate both headache types from asymptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, additional high-quality studies are required to corroborate these findings.Study registrationFollowing indications of Prisma-P guidelines, this protocol was registered in PROSPERO on 21/05/2019 with the number CRD42019135269 . All amendments performed during the review were registered in PROSPERO, indicating the date and what and why was changed.

Project description:BackgroundTraumatic cervicogenic dizziness is dizziness that is temporally associated with neck pain and injury after other causes of dizziness have been excluded. It can lead to activity limitations and participation restrictions that may include lost duty or work days. The objective of this systematic review is to determine which interventions are most effective in decreasing dizziness or vertigo and neck pain in military-aged adults with traumatic cervicogenic dizziness.MethodsThe literature will be systematically searched using the following online databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Cochrane Methodology Register), CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and J-STAGE. The review will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster RCTs and controlled (non-randomized) clinical trials or cluster trials, and observational studies (including prospective and retrospective comparative cohort and case-control or nested case-control studies) and determine the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions for the treatment of traumatic cervicogenic dizziness in military-aged adults. Assessment of methodological quality will be performed by two independent, blinded reviewers using the PEDro scale. The level of evidence will be determined using the GRADE scale. The primary outcome measures will be change in dizziness and neck pain and disability from baseline to the last available follow-up, measured using the Dizziness Handicap Inventory and Neck Disability Index. Other relevant outcome measures will include self-reported change in symptoms, time to return to duty or work, and quality of life.DiscussionThis systematic review will identify, evaluate, and integrate the evidence on the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions for cervicogenic dizziness in a military-aged population. We anticipate our findings may inform individual treatment and future research. Clinical recommendations generated from this systematic review may inform military physical therapy treatment of individuals with cervicogenic dizziness.Systematic review registrationIn accordance with the guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 21 January 2020 (registration number CRD42020150853). In the event of protocol amendments, the date of each amendment will be accompanied by a description of the change and the rationale.

Project description:Aims:Migraine is a global phenomenon, affecting more than 10% of the world's population. It is characterized by unilateral headache that may be accompanied by vomiting, nausea, photophobia and phonophobia. Some patients with chronic migraine respond to extra-cranial botulinum toxin type A injection, although the benefits observed are temporary. The rationale for surgical trigger site deactivation is to achieve lasting symptomatic improvement or permanent relief from migraine. Methods:We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of clinical studies evaluating surgical intervention for migraine by searching Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to June 2017. Studies were independently screened by two authors. Data were extracted on study characteristics, migraine outcomes, adverse events and recurrence. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The review protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017068577). Results:The search strategy identified 789 articles; of them, 18 studies (4 RCTs and 14 case series) were eligible for analysis. Surgical interventions were heterogeneous and variably involved peripheral nerve decompression by myectomy or foraminotomy, nerve excision, artery resection and/or nasal surgery. All studies reported significant reductions in migraine intensity, frequency, duration and composite headache scores following surgery. Study heterogeneity precluded formal meta-analysis. Where reported, adverse event rates varied markedly between studies. The quality of included studies was consistently low or very low. Conclusion:There is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of any specific surgical intervention for chronic migraine, especially with regard to permanent relief; however, all included studies report improvements in key outcomes following migraine surgery. A definitive, well-powered RCT with objective surgical and patient-reported outcome measures and robust adverse event reporting is required.

Project description:BackgroundMigraineurs often exhibited abnormalities in cognition, emotion, and resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC), whereas patients with tension-type headache (TTH) rarely exhibited these abnormalities. The aim of this study is to explore whether rsFC alterations in brain regions related to cognition and emotion could be used to distinguish patients with migraine from patients with TTH.MethodsIn this study, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and rsFC analyses were used to assess the cognition, anxiety, and depression of 24 healthy controls (HCs), 24 migraineurs, and 24 patients with TTH. Due to their important roles in neuropsychological functions, the bilateral amygdala and hippocampus were chosen as seed regions for rsFC analyses. We further assessed the accuracy of the potential rsFC alterations for distinguishing migraineurs from non-migraineurs (including HCs and patients with TTH) by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Associations between headache characteristics and rsFC features were calculated using a multi-linear regression model. This clinical trial protocol has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registry number: ChiCTR1900024307, Registered: 5 July 2019-Retrospectively registered, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=40817).ResultsMigraineurs showed lower MoCA scores (p = 0.010) and higher SAS scores (p = 0.017) than HCs. Migraineurs also showed decreased rsFC in the bilateral calcarine/cuneus, lingual gyrus (seed: left amygdala), and bilateral calcarine/cuneus (seed: left hippocampus) in comparison to HCs and patients with TTH. These rsFC features demonstrated significant distinguishing capabilities and got a sensitivity of 82.6% and specificity of 81.8% with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.868. rsFC alterations showed a significant correlation with headache frequency in migraineurs (p = 0.001, Pc = 0.020).ConclusionThe rsFC of amygdala and hippocampus with occipital lobe can be used to distinguish patients with migraine from patients with TTH.Clinical trial registration[http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=40817], identifier [ChiCTR1900024307].

Dataset Information

Can physical testing be used to distinguish between migraine and cervicogenic headache sufferers? A protocol for a systematic review.

Publications

Can physical testing be used to distinguish between migraine and cervicogenic headache sufferers? A protocol for a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets