Progress in Clinical Neurosciences A Systematic Review of the Use of Triptans in Acute Migraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken, to consolidate evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of triptans currently available in Canada (sumatriptan, rizatriptan, naratriptan, zolmitriptan), and to provide guidelines for selection of a triptan. METHODS: Data from published, randomized, placebo-controlled trials were pooled and a combined number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) was generated for each triptan. Direct comparative trials of triptans were also examined. RESULTS: The lowest NNT for headache response/pain-free at one/two hours is observed with subcutaneous sumatriptan. Among the oral formulations, the lowest NNT is observed with rizatriptan and the highest NNT with naratriptan. The lowest NNH is observed with subcutaneous sumatriptan. CONCLUSIONS: Triptans are relatively safe and effective medications for acute migraine attacks. However, differences among them are relatively small. Considerations in selecting a triptan include individual patient response/tolerance, characteristics of the attacks, relief of associated symptoms, consistency of response, headache recurrence, delivery systems and patient preference.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".