Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Non–Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double‐Blind, Sham‐Controlled ACT1 Study

Open access
Silberstein, Stephen D., Mechtler, Laszlo L., Kudrow, David B., Calhoun, Anne H., McClure, Candace, Saper, Joel R., Liebler, Eric J., Rubenstein Engel, Emily, Tepper, Stewart J., on Behalf of the ACT1 Study Group·2016·Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate non‐invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment. Background: Many patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments. Methods: One hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double‐blind phase; completers could enter a 3‐month nVNS open‐label phase. The primary end point was response rate , defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15‐60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified. Results: The intent‐to‐treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS‐treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham‐treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS‐treated subjects and 15.1% of sham‐treated subjects ( P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort ( P = .008) and total population ( P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double‐blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open‐label phase. No serious ADEs occurred. Conclusions: In one of the largest randomized sham‐controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well‐tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.

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 · 10.1111/head.12896

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Silberstein, S. D., Mechtler, L. L., Kudrow, D. B., Calhoun, A. H., McClure, C., Saper, J. R., Liebler, E. J., Rubenstein Engel, E., Tepper, S. J., & on Behalf of the ACT1 Study Group
Venue
Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09
Volume
56
Issue
8
Pages
1317-1332
ISSN
  • 0017-8748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4610
OpenAlex
W2509261887
Cited by
263
References
31
FWCI
24.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Non–Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double‐Blind, Sham‐Controlled ACT1 Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/head.12896
The paper
Silberstein, S. D., Mechtler, L. L., Kudrow, D. B., Calhoun, A. H., McClure, C., Saper, J. R., Liebler, E. J., Rubenstein Engel, E., Tepper, S. J., & on Behalf of the ACT1 Study Group. (2016). Non–Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double‐Blind, Sham‐Controlled ACT1 Study. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.12896

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.