Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis

Linde, Klaus, Rossnagel, Karin·2004·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Propranolol is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for migraine prophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether there is evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo and as effective as other drugs for the interval (prophylactic) treatment of patients with migraine. SEARCH STRATEGY: Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to May 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2003), and by screening bibliographies of reviews and identified articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials of at least 4 weeks duration comparing clinical effects of propranolol with placebo or another drug in adult migraine sufferers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes measured, and results using a pre-tested form. Study quality was assessed using two checklists (Jadad scale and Delphi list). Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures and insufficient reporting of the data, only selective quantitative meta-analyses were performed. As far as possible, effect size estimates were calculated for single trials. In addition, results were summarised descriptively and by a vote count among the reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 58 trials with 5072 participants met the inclusion criteria. The 58 selected trials included 26 comparisons with placebo and 47 comparisons with other drugs. The methodological quality of the majority of trials was unsatisfactory. The principal shortcomings were high dropout rates and insufficient reporting and handling of this problem in the analysis. Overall, the 26 placebo-controlled trials showed clear short-term effects of propranolol over placebo. Due to the lack of studies with long-term follow up, it is unclear whether these effects are stable after stopping propranolol. The 47 comparisons with calcium antagonists, other beta-blockers, and a variety of other drugs did not yield any clear-cut differences. Sample size was, however, insufficient in most trials to establish equivalence. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Although many trials have relevant methodological shortcomings, there is clear evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo in the short-term interval treatment of migraine. Evidence on long-term effects is lacking. Propranolol seems to be as effective and safe as a variety of other drugs used for migraine prophylaxis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd003225.pub2This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
Linde, K., & Rossnagel, K.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2004-04-19
Issue
2
Pages
CD003225-CD003225
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1674600634
Cited by
187
References
2
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd003225.pub2
The paper
Linde, K., & Rossnagel, K. (2004). Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003225.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.