The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment Score in A Population-Based Sample of Headache Sufferers
Open accessAbstract
Background. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score is used to quantify headache-related disability. In a previous study, we showed that the MIDAS score was highly reliable in population-based samples of migraine headache sufferers in two countries. Objectives. To examine the test–retest reliability and internal consistency of the five items comprising the MIDAS score and the overall MIDAS score in a population-based sample of both migraine and nonmigraine headache sufferers. Methods. Using a clinically validated telephone interview, a population-based sample of migraine and nonmigraine headache sufferers was identified in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. A total of 97 migraine cases and 80 nonmigraine subjects completed the MIDAS questionnaire on two occasions an average of 3 weeks apart. The MIDAS score is derived from five questions about missed time from work (or school) and household work (one question each about missed days and days with at least 50% reduced productivity) and missed days of nonwork activities. Results. Among all headache sufferers die test–retest Spearman's correlations of individual MIDAS questions ranged from 0.67 to 0.73. The Spearman's correlation for the MIDAS score (i.e., sum of lost days and reduced effectiveness days in each domain) was 0.84. Cronbach's alpha, a measure of internal consistency, was 0.83. Mean and median item values and the overall MIDAS scores differed between migraine and nonmigraine cases. Even after adjusting for differences in headache frequency, the mean MIDAS scores differed substantially (i.e., 10.3 points) between migraine cases and nonmigraine cases. Conclusions. The reliability and internal consistency of the MIDAS score are high, as tested in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. MIDAS scores are substantially higher in migraine cases than in nonmigraine cases, supporting the validity of the measure.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lipton, R. B., Stewart, W. F., Ryan, R. E., Saper, J., Silberstein, S., & Sheftell, F. (1998) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneur.55.2.210 · Cited by 223
Self-citation
Cited by
Prevalence and Burden of Migraine in the United States: Data From the American Migraine Study II
Lipton, R. B., Stewart, W. F., Diamond, S., Diamond, M. L., & Reed, M. (2001) · Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain · doi:10.1046/j.1526-4610.2001.041007646.x · Cited by 2,268
Self-citationA six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: The HIT-6™
Kosinski, M., Bayliss, M. S., Bjorner, J. B., Ware, J. E., Garber, W. H., Batenhorst, A., Cady, R., Dahlöf, C. G. H., Dowson, A., & Tepper, S. (2003) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1023/a:1026119331193 · Cited by 1,376
Stewart, W. F., Lipton, R. B., Dowson, A. J., & Sawyer, J. (2001) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.56.suppl_1.s20 · Cited by 1,210
Self-citationBurch, R. C., Buse, D. C., & Lipton, R. B. (2019) · Neurologic Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.ncl.2019.06.001 · Cited by 741
Self-citationBlumenfeld, A., Varon, S., Wilcox, T., Buse, D., Kawata, A., Manack, A., Goadsby, P., & Lipton, R. (2011) · Cephalalgia · doi:10.1177/0333102410381145 · Cited by 627
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stewart, W., Lipton, R., Kolodner, K., Liberman, J., & Sawyer, J.
- Venue
- Cephalalgia
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 107-114
- ISSN
- 0333-1024 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2982
- OpenAlex
- W2065369272
- Cited by
- 556
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.
