Cited by 52Migraine and Headache StudiesDelphi Technique in ResearchTemporomandibular Joint Disorders

Outcome measures for assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in frequent episodic or chronic migraine: a delphi study

Open access
Luedtke, Kerstin, Basener, Annika, Bedei, Stephanie, Castien, Rene, Chaibi, Aleksander, Falla, Deborah, Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Cesar, Gustafsson, Mirja +10 more·2020·BMJ Open

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients. SETTING: University-initiated international survey. PARTICIPANTS: The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers. PROCEDURES: The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools. RESULTS: Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011777).

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029855

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A ≥30% reduction threshold for response is realistic to detect minor changes that can represent a veritable improvement for patients and is more suitable for non-pharmacological interventions than a ≥50% threshold.

    “In contrast to a more conservative ≥50% response operationalization, this threshold seems realistic to detect minor changes that can represent a veritable improvement for patients as well and can be considered more suitable for non-pharmacological interventions (46).”

    From Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for the Prophylaxis of Migraine in Adults: A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Discussion says a ≥50% reduction in headache frequency is difficult to achieve with non-pharmacological interventions and that a lower target should be considered. Patient interviews also found that small improvements mattered to patients. But the Discussion reports no agreement on a specific cut-off: it mentions 30% as an accepted responder rate for chronic migraine, not as the study’s recommended threshold for non-pharmacological interventions. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luedtke, K., Basener, A., Bedei, S., Castien, R., Chaibi, A., Falla, D., Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C., Gustafsson, M., Hall, T., Jull, G., Kropp, P., Madsen, B. K., Schaefer, B., Seng, E., Steen, C., Tuchin, P., von Piekartz, H., & Wollesen, B.
Affiliations
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Akershus University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Centre of Clinical Research Excellence in Spinal Pain, Injury and Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • Institut für Medizinische Psychologie (DE)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Migräne Klinik Königstein (DE)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Hochschule Osnabruck, Osnabruck, Niedersachsen, Germany
Corresponding author
Luedtke, Kerstin
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-02
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
e029855
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006624400
Cited by
52
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6
FWCI
6.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Library Osnabrück University (Hochschule Osnabrück) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
Keywords
migraine, non-pharmacological treatment, outcome measures, consensus, Migraine Disability Assessment, Headache Impact Test, headache frequency, quality of life, adjunctive therapy, patient perspectives
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Delphi Technique, Exercise Therapy, Humans, Migraine Disorders, Relaxation Therapy, Exercise, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Acupuncture, Manipulation, Chiropractic, Internationality

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