The DOI matches its Crossref record; 161 of the 161 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and side effects of migraine prophylactic medications. DESIGN: We performed a network meta-analysis. Data were extracted independently in duplicate and quality was assessed using both the JADAD and Cochrane Risk of Bias instruments. Data were pooled and network meta-analysis performed using random effects models. DATA SOURCES: PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Registry, bibliography of retrieved articles through 18 May 2014. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included randomized controlled trials of adults with migraine headaches of at least 4 weeks in duration. RESULTS: Placebo controlled trials included alpha blockers (n = 9), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 3), angiotensin receptor blockers (n = 3), anticonvulsants (n = 32), beta-blockers (n = 39), calcium channel blockers (n = 12), flunarizine (n = 7), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (n = 6), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (n = 1) serotonin agonists (n = 9) and tricyclic antidepressants (n = 11). In addition there were 53 trials comparing different drugs. Drugs with at least 3 trials that were more effective than placebo for episodic migraines included amitriptyline (SMD: -1.2, 95% CI: -1.7 to -0.82), -flunarizine (-1.1 headaches/month (ha/month), 95% CI: -1.6 to -0.67), fluoxetine (SMD: -0.57, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.17), metoprolol (-0.94 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.4 to -0.46), pizotifen (-0.43 ha/month, 95% CI: -0.6 to -0.21), propranolol (-1.3 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.0 to -0.62), topiramate (-1.1 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.9 to -0.73) and valproate (-1.5 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.1 to -0.8). Several effective drugs with less than 3 trials included: 3 ace inhibitors (enalapril, lisinopril, captopril), two angiotensin receptor blockers (candesartan, telmisartan), two anticonvulsants (lamotrigine, levetiracetam), and several beta-blockers (atenolol, bisoprolol, timolol). Network meta-analysis found amitriptyline to be better than several other medications including candesartan, fluoxetine, propranolol, topiramate and valproate and no different than atenolol, flunarizine, clomipramine or metoprolol. CONCLUSION: Several drugs good evidence supporting efficacy. There is weak evidence supporting amitriptyline's superiority over some drugs. Selection of prophylactic medication should be tailored according to patient preferences, characteristics and side effect profiles.
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
3 retracted
Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis
Linde, K., & Rossnagel, K. (2004) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003225.pub2 · Cited by 187
RetractedAnticonvulsant drugs for migraine prophylaxis
Chronicle, E. P., & Mulleners, W. M. (2004) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003226.pub2 · Cited by 139
RetractedOral sumatriptan for acute migraine
McCrory, D. C., & Gray, R. N. (2003) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002915 · Cited by 73
RetractedPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,657
Cited by
Coles, J. A., Myburgh, E., Brewer, J. M., & McMenamin, P. G. (2017) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.05.002 · Cited by 123
Vandervorst, F., Van Deun, L., Van Dycke, A., Paemeleire, K., Reuter, U., Schoenen, J., & Versijpt, J. (2021) · The Journal of Headache and Pain · doi:10.1186/s10194-021-01335-2 · Cited by 121
β-blockers: Their new life from hypertension to cancer and migraine
Fumagalli, C., Maurizi, N., Marchionni, N., & Fornasari, D. (2020) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2019.104587 · Cited by 102
Leroux, E., Beaudet, L., Boudreau, G., Eghtesadi, M., Marchand, L., Pim, H., & Chagnon, M. (2018) · Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · doi:10.1111/head.13178 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Jackson, J. L., Cogbill, E., Santana-Davila, R., Eldredge, C., Collier, W., Gradall, A., Sehgal, N., & Kuester, J.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-07-14
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e0130733
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1528728629
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 161
- FWCI
- 3.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0130733
- The paper
- Jackson, J. L., Cogbill, E., Santana-Davila, R., Eldredge, C., Collier, W., Gradall, A., Sehgal, N., & Kuester, J. (2015). A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130733
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.