New Paradigms in the Recognition and Acute Treatment of Migraine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It would be ideal if clinical decisions regarding acute migraine treatment could be made on the basis of three parameters: a critical appraisal of available scientific evidence, clinical experience (including knowledge of the individual patient and his/her attack characteristics), and, of course, patient preferences. Patients are likely to prefer agents that offer rapid relief, pain-free status within 2 hours, no recurrence or need for rescue medication, extended time to recurrence (if present), consistency of therapeutic effect over multiple attacks, oral administration. good tolerability, safety, and minimal drug interactions. Fortunately, a number of specific therapies now are available which place these objectives within the patient's reach. Ongoing barriers to optimal migraine care include underrecognition, underconsultation, undertreatment, restrictions imposed by insurance companies, and exaggerated concerns regarding the safety of the triptans. Overcoming these barriers is likely to prove a more important contribution to patient care than endeavoring to establish the relative merits of one triptan over another. We have described in detail a number of strategies for improving recognition and treatment of migraine. Many headache specialists now believe that recurrent episodes of disabling headache, with a stable pattern over years, should be viewed as migraine until proven otherwise. In the end, this may represent the most useful paradigm in the primary care setting, where time is of the essence. Studies to validate this approach are needed. Acute treatment intervention that is based on scientific evidence, clinical experience, and patients' needs and desires will provide better outcomes than those presently obtained. Preliminary evidence favors early intervention with oral triptans, and randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, ideally employing a crossover design, are required to confirm this. The US Consortium's evidence-based guidelines, the National Headache Foundation's standards of care, and the Canadian guidelines have applied the standards of scientific inquiry to the field of headache management and "translation" of these guidelines into practical instruments for clinicians through vehicles such as the Primary Care Network's Patient-Centered Strategies for Effective Management of Migraine should raise the general standard of care for patients with migraine. Last, but far from least, initiatives undertaken by the World Health Organization (WHO) will add credibility to the many layfolk and professionals who have struggled to present headache as a disabling disorder worthy of scientific investigation and aggressive medical management. The WHO states: "These common complaints impose a significant health burden ... Despite this, both the public and the majority of healthcare professionals tend to perceive headache as a minor or trivial complaint. As a result, the physical, emotional, social and economic burdens of headache are poorly acknowledged in comparison with those of other, less prevalent, neurologic disorders." Migraine is finally out of the closet.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».