Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 490

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

Chronic migraine in the population: Burden, diagnosis, and satisfaction with treatment

Bigal, Marcelo E., Serrano, Daniel, Reed, Michael, Lipton, Richard B.·2008·Neurology
DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000323925.29520.e7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the disability profile and patterns of treatment and health care use for chronic migraine (CM) in the general population, in contrast to episodic migraine. METHODS: We identified 24,000 headache sufferers, drawn from more than 165,000 individuals representative of the US population. This sample has been followed up with annual surveys using validated questionnaires for the diagnosis of episodic migraine and CM. As a part of the survey, subjects were asked to report the specific medications currently used for their most severe headaches, as well as level of satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 520 individuals with CM and 9,424 with episodic migraine. Over a 3-month period, more than half of the individuals with CM missed at least 5 days of household work, compared with 24.3% of those with episodic migraine (p < 0.001). Reduced productivity in household work for at least 5 days over 3 months was reported by 58.1% and 18.2% (p < 0.001); at least 5 days of missed family activities was reported by 36.9% and 9.5% (p < 0.001). The majority of the CM sufferers (87.6%) had previously sought care to discuss their headaches with a health professional. Migraine-specific acute treatments were used by 31.6% of respondents with CM and 24.8% with episodic migraine. Around 48% of the individuals with CM were satisfied with their acute therapies. Just 33.3% of those with CM were currently using preventive medications. CONCLUSION: Chronic migraine (CM) is more disabling than episodic migraine in the population. Although most individuals with CM sought medical care for this disorder, the majority did not receive specific acute or preventive medications.

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 · 10.1212/01.wnl.0000323925.29520.e7

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias, and facial pain: second edition. Cephalalgia 2004;Suppl 1:1–160.
  2. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2006.01062.x · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2006.01062.x
  3. 10.1590/S0004-282X2000000200029 · doi:10.1590/s0004-282x2000000200029

Cited by

See all 490

Metadata

Authors
Bigal, M. E., Serrano, D., Reed, M., & Lipton, R. B.
Venue
Neurology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2008-08-19
Volume
71
Issue
8
Pages
559-566
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
DOI
10.1212/01.wnl.0000323925.29520.e7
OpenAlex
W2170860462
Cited by
490
References
31
FWCI
17.13
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: Chronic migraine in the population: Burden, diagnosis, and satisfaction with treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/01.wnl.0000323925.29520.e7
The paper
Bigal, M. E., Serrano, D., Reed, M., & Lipton, R. B. (2008). Chronic migraine in the population: Burden, diagnosis, and satisfaction with treatment. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000323925.29520.e7

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.