27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prognostic factors for chronic headache : A systematic review

      review-article
      , MPH , , PhD, , MA, , PhD, , MD, , MD, , PhD, On behalf of the CHESS Team
      Neurology
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          To identify predictors of prognosis and trial outcomes in prospective studies of people with chronic headache.

          Methods:

          This was a systematic review of published literature in peer-reviewed journals . We included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for chronic headache that reported subgroup analyses and (2) prospective cohort studies, published in English, since 1980. Participants included adults with chronic headache (including chronic headache, chronic migraine, and chronic tension-type headache with or without medication overuse headache). We searched key databases using free text and MeSH terms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of studies and overall quality of evidence identified using appropriate published checklists.

          Results:

          We identified 16,556 titles, removed 663 duplicates, and reviewed 199 articles, of which 27 were included in the review—17 prospective cohorts and 10 RCTs with subgroup analyses reported. There was moderate-quality evidence indicating that depression, anxiety, poor sleep and stress, medication overuse, and poor self-efficacy for managing headaches are potential prognostic factors for poor prognosis and unfavorable outcomes from preventive treatment in chronic headache. There was inconclusive evidence about treatment expectations, age, age at onset, body mass index, employment, and several headache features.

          Conclusions:

          This review identified several potential predictors of poor prognosis and worse outcome postinterventions in people with chronic headache. The majority of these are modifiable. The findings also highlight the need for more longitudinal high-quality research of prognostic factors in chronic headache.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global prevalence of chronic migraine: a systematic review.

          The aim of this review was to summarize population-based studies reporting prevalence and/or incidence of chronic migraine (CM) and to explore variation across studies. A systematic literature search was conducted. Relevant data were abstracted and estimates were subdivided based on the criteria used in each study. Sixteen publications representing 12 studies were accepted. None presented data on CM incidence. The prevalence of CM was 0-5.1%, with estimates typically in the range of 1.4-2.2%. Seven studies used Silberstein-Lipton criteria (or equivalent), with prevalence ranging from 0.9% to 5.1%. Three estimates used migraine that occurred ≥15 days per month, with prevalence ranging from 0 to 0.7%. Prevalence varied by World Health Organization region and gender. This review identified population-based studies of CM prevalence, although heterogeneity across studies and lack of data from certain regions leaves an incomplete picture. Future studies on CM would benefit from an International Classification of Headache Disorders consensus diagnosis that is clinically appropriate and operational in epidemiological studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Observational and interventional study design types; an overview

            The appropriate choice in study design is essential for the successful execution of biomedical and public health research. There are many study designs to choose from within two broad categories of observational and interventional studies. Each design has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the need to understand these limitations is necessary to arrive at correct study conclusions. Observational study designs, also called epidemiologic study designs, are often retrospective and are used to assess potential causation in exposure-outcome relationships and therefore influence preventive methods. Observational study designs include ecological designs, cross sectional, case-control, case-crossover, retrospective and prospective cohorts. An important subset of observational studies is diagnostic study designs, which evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic procedures and tests as compared to other diagnostic measures. These include diagnostic accuracy designs, diagnostic cohort designs, and diagnostic randomized controlled trials. Interventional studies are often prospective and are specifically tailored to evaluate direct impacts of treatment or preventive measures on disease. Each study design has specific outcome measures that rely on the type and quality of data utilized. Additionally, each study design has potential limitations that are more severe and need to be addressed in the design phase of the study. This manuscript is meant to provide an overview of study design types, strengths and weaknesses of common observational and interventional study designs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a national lay-led self care support programme for patients with long-term conditions: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

              Supporting patients' self care could have a major effect on the management of long-term conditions, which has led to worldwide interest in effective self care interventions. In England, self care support is being developed through the "Expert Patients Programme", which provides lay-led generic courses to improve patients' self care skills. However, the clinical and cost effectiveness of such courses remains unclear. Two-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trial design with waiting list control in community settings in England. 629 patients with a wide range of self-defined long-term conditions were studied. The lay-led self care support group involved 6-weekly sessions to teach self care skills. Primary outcomes were self-efficacy, reported energy and routine health services utilisation at 6 months. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also conducted. Patients receiving immediate course access reported considerably greater self-efficacy and energy at 6-month follow-up, but reported no statistically significant reductions in routine health services utilisation over the same time period. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that patients receiving immediate course access reported considerably greater health related quality of life, and a small reduction in costs. If a quality adjusted life year was valued at 20,000 pounds (39,191 dollars; 30,282 Euro), there was a 70% probability that the intervention was cost effective. Lay-led self care support groups are effective in improving self-efficacy and energy levels among patients with long-term conditions, and are likely to be cost effective over 6 months at conventional values of a decision-maker's willingness to pay. They may be a useful addition to current services in the management of long-term conditions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Neurology
                Neurology
                neurology
                neur
                neurology
                NEUROLOGY
                Neurology
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0028-3878
                1526-632X
                18 July 2017
                18 July 2017
                : 89
                : 3
                : 291-301
                Affiliations
                From the Department of Psychology (K.P., H.B., F.C., T.P.), Royal Holloway, University of London; Warwick Clinical Trials Unit (D.M., M.U.), Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry; and Headache Group (M.M.), Institute of Neurology and The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK.
                Author notes
                Correspondence to K. Probyn: Katrin.probyn@ 123456rhul.ac.uk

                Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article. The Article Processing Charge was funded by the authors.

                Coinvestigators are listed at Neurology.org.

                Article
                NEUROLOGY2016787317
                10.1212/WNL.0000000000004112
                5513814
                28615422
                53a255df-6272-40eb-b750-07c1f4ea7596
                Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 08 December 2016
                : 15 March 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health Research
                Award ID: (RP-PG-1212-20018)
                Categories
                101
                103
                Views & Reviews
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article