MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1964857058 · doi:10.1177/0333102411410086

Cervicogenic headache and onabotulinumtoxinA: Where do we stand?

2011· letter· en· W1964857058 sur OpenAlexaff
WJ Becker, Prin Chitsantikul

Notice bibliographique

RevueCephalalgia · 2011
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMigraine and Headache Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCervicogenic headachePhysical therapyAnesthesiaMigraine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Recent clinical trials have shown benefit for onabotulinumtoxinA (OBTA) in chronic migraine, and it certainly will be questioned whether OBTA might be beneficial in other headache types as well. Cervicogenic headache is one of the more controversial of these other headache types. In this issue of Cephalalgia, Linde and colleagues report on the results of a randomized placebo controlled trial on the use of OBTA in the treatment of cervicogenic headache (1). Their trial was negative, with OBTA showing treatment results no better than placebo. These results are of course disappointing, as cervicogenic headache is often a difficult headache syndrome to treat, but does this study provide a definitive answer to the question of whether OBTA can be beneficial in cervicogenic headache? In our interpretation of the results of this trial, at least two levels of consideration are important. The first has to do with the limitations of the trial itself. Although the authors point out that the cross-over design of their trial gives it considerable power, the size of the trial is still relatively small (1). Only 13 patients were randomized to OBTA and 15 to placebo at study onset. Furthermore, subject drop-outs during the trial were significant. Five of the 13 patients randomized initially to OBTA dropped out before the end of the study. Those who follow the medical literature in this area will recall that much larger trials were negative when OBTA was first tested for efficacy in patients with chronic daily headache. The recent PREEMPT trials that finally supported efficacy for OBTA in chronic migraine randomized a total of 688 patients to OBTA treatment and 696 to placebo (2,3). In addition, the study by Linde et al. (1) can be criticized in that subjects could be crossed over to the other treatment arm in as little as 8 weeks after initiation of treatment. What this means is that patients who received OBTA in the initial part of the study could be crossed over to placebo after 8 weeks, even though it is generally recognized that the effects of OBTA can last as long as three months. Therefore, in theory, for those patients who received placebo during the second arm of this cross-over study, the first four weeks of placebo treatment could be contaminated by the lingering effects of the initial OBTA injection. The authors indicate that, statistically, the treatment sequence did not affect their results, but given the size of the study, this might still be questioned. The second level of consideration lies in the very nature of cervicogenic headache itself. There are many potential sources of pain in the neck (4) and these might respond differently to attempted treatment with OBTA. The authors undertook the trial on the premise that the soft tissues of the neck might be a significant source of pain in cervicogenic headache and that the headache itself is a result of referred pain due to the convergence of nociceptive inputs from the head and neck onto the same second-order sensory neurons in the trigeminocervical complex (5,6). However, if cervicogenic headache is a heterogeneous condition with different sources of pain in different patients, it might be difficult to show a treatment effect with any treatment that is not specifically tailored to the underlying pathology. The most proven pain generator in cervicogenic headache is the facet joint (7,8). In the trial by Linde et al. (1), the OBTA was injected in a standardized fashion and in the same way in all patients. Injections were apparently given into only six injection sites. Even in patients whose pain may have been ofmuscular origin, because injectionswere not individualized based on individual patient soft tissue assessment; for many patients the injection paradigm used by Linde et al. may have been suboptimal. Standardized injection paradigms may be effective in relatively diffuse conditions such as chronic migraine, but the situation may be very different in conditions where the source of the pain is focal. On the other hand, if a potential therapeutic effect of OBTA in cervicogenic headache depends on a diffuse reduction of neural inputs into the trigeminocervical complex, then a more widespread

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,028
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,028
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,147

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0280,041
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,003
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,007
Communication savante0,0080,015
Science ouverte0,0040,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0240,020
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,270
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCephalalgiaMême sujetMigraine and Headache StudiesTravaux en français237 207