Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 413

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patterns of Diagnosis and Acute and Preventive Treatment for Migraine in the United States: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study: CME

Diamond, Seymour, Bigal, Marcelo E., Silberstein, Stephen, Loder, Elizabeth, Reed, Michael, Lipton, Richard B.·2007·Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain

Abstract

Objective.—To describe the patterns of medical treatment for migraineurs in the United States. Background.—Over the past decade, many new treatments for migraine have become available and awareness of migraine has improved. However, there is little information about the patterns of medical treatment in the US society. Design/Methods.—A validated self‐administered headache questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 120,000 US households. Each household member with severe headaches was asked to complete the survey. The questionnaire assessed headache features, disability, and patterns of medical treatment. Subjects were classified according to their use of headache preventive medication, as current users, coincident users (using effective medications for other medical reasons), lapsed users (had used in the past but not at the time of the survey), or never users. Results.—In 162,576 participants, the prevalence of migraine was 17.1% in women and 5.6% in men. Only 56.2% of those with migraine had ever received a medical diagnosis. Ninety‐eight percent of the migraineurs used acute treatment for their migraine attacks. Forty‐nine percent (49%) usually used over‐the‐counters, 20% usually used prescription medications, and 29% used both. Only 12.4% of migraineurs indicated that they were taking a migraine preventive medication, but 17.2% were using medications with potential antimigraine effects for other medical reasons. Current or past use of preventive medication was more likely in women than men (odds ratio [OR]= 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27‐1.48), increased with age and individuals with high MIDAS grade (Grade IV vs I, OR 2.35, 95% CI 2.09‐2.64). Preventive medication use increased with awareness of migraine and with illness severity. Conclusions.—Migraine remains undertreated in the US population. Barriers to preventive treatment are greater in younger age groups, men, and people unaware that they have migraine.

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/j.1526-4610.2006.00631.x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 413

Metadata

Authors
Diamond, S., Bigal, M. E., Silberstein, S., Loder, E., Reed, M., & Lipton, R. B.
Venue
Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11-17
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
355-363
ISSN
  • 0017-8748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4610
OpenAlex
W2025168050
Cited by
413
References
3
FWCI
14.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
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: Patterns of Diagnosis and Acute and Preventive Treatment for Migraine in the United States: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study: CME. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00631.x
The paper
Diamond, S., Bigal, M. E., Silberstein, S., Loder, E., Reed, M., & Lipton, R. B. (2007). Patterns of Diagnosis and Acute and Preventive Treatment for Migraine in the United States: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study: CME. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00631.x

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.