Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2024
Premonitory symptoms in migraine: A REFORM Study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thuraiaiyah Janu, Ashina Håkan, Christensen Rune H, Al-Khazali Haidar M, Wiggers Astrid, Amin Faisal Mohammad, Steiner Timothy J, Ashina Messoud
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Estimates of proportions of people with migraine who report premonitory symptoms vary greatly among previous studies. Our aims were to establish the proportion of patients reporting premonitory symptoms and its dependency on the enquiry method. Additionally, we investigated the impact of premonitory symptoms on disease burden using Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), whilst investigating how various clinical factors influenced the likelihood of reporting premonitory symptoms.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, premonitory symptoms were assessed among 632 patients with migraine. Unprompted enquiry was used first, followed by a list of 17 items (prompted). Additionally, we obtained clinical characteristics through a semi-structured interview.
RESULTS: Prompted enquiry resulted in a greater proportion reporting premonitory symptoms than unprompted (69.9% vs. 43.0%; p < 0.001) and with higher symptom counts (medians 2, interquartile range = 0-6 vs. 1, interquartile range = 0-1; p < 0.001). The number of symptoms correlated weakly with HIT-6 (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001) and WHODAS scores (ρ = 0.09; p = 0.041). Reporting postdromal symptoms or triggers increased the probability of reporting premonitory symptoms, whereas monthly migraine days decreased it.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a standardized and optimized method for assessing premonitory symptoms is necessary to estimate their prevalence and to understand whether and how they contribute to disease burden.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, premonitory symptoms were assessed among 632 patients with migraine. Unprompted enquiry was used first, followed by a list of 17 items (prompted). Additionally, we obtained clinical characteristics through a semi-structured interview.
RESULTS: Prompted enquiry resulted in a greater proportion reporting premonitory symptoms than unprompted (69.9% vs. 43.0%; p < 0.001) and with higher symptom counts (medians 2, interquartile range = 0-6 vs. 1, interquartile range = 0-1; p < 0.001). The number of symptoms correlated weakly with HIT-6 (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001) and WHODAS scores (ρ = 0.09; p = 0.041). Reporting postdromal symptoms or triggers increased the probability of reporting premonitory symptoms, whereas monthly migraine days decreased it.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a standardized and optimized method for assessing premonitory symptoms is necessary to estimate their prevalence and to understand whether and how they contribute to disease burden.