Pharmacologic Management of Migraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters16 March 2004Pharmacologic Management of MigraineAndrew J. Dowson, MB, Roger K. Cady, MD, Stewart J. Tepper, MD, Timothy R. Smith, MD, and Gary Shapero, MDAndrew J. Dowson, MBFrom The King's Headache Service, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom; Headache Care Center and Primary Care Network, Springfield, MO 65804; New England Center for Headache, Stamford, CT 06902; Mercy Health Research, St. Louis, MO 63017; and Markham Headache and Pain Treatment Center, Unionville, Ontario L3R OW7, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, Roger K. Cady, MDFrom The King's Headache Service, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom; Headache Care Center and Primary Care Network, Springfield, MO 65804; New England Center for Headache, Stamford, CT 06902; Mercy Health Research, St. Louis, MO 63017; and Markham Headache and Pain Treatment Center, Unionville, Ontario L3R OW7, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, Stewart J. Tepper, MDFrom The King's Headache Service, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom; Headache Care Center and Primary Care Network, Springfield, MO 65804; New England Center for Headache, Stamford, CT 06902; Mercy Health Research, St. Louis, MO 63017; and Markham Headache and Pain Treatment Center, Unionville, Ontario L3R OW7, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, Timothy R. Smith, MDFrom The King's Headache Service, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom; Headache Care Center and Primary Care Network, Springfield, MO 65804; New England Center for Headache, Stamford, CT 06902; Mercy Health Research, St. Louis, MO 63017; and Markham Headache and Pain Treatment Center, Unionville, Ontario L3R OW7, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, and Gary Shapero, MDFrom The King's Headache Service, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom; Headache Care Center and Primary Care Network, Springfield, MO 65804; New England Center for Headache, Stamford, CT 06902; Mercy Health Research, St. Louis, MO 63017; and Markham Headache and Pain Treatment Center, Unionville, Ontario L3R OW7, Canada.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-6-200403160-00031-w1 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:Snow and colleagues (1) provided clinical guidelines for the management of migraine by primary care physicians. Although these guidelines generally follow those published by the U.S. Headache Consortium (2), several issues relating to their advice may result in suboptimal care in clinical practice.All recently published evidence-based guidelines for migraine management, including those of the U.S. Headache Consortium (2), the U.S. Primary Care Network (3), and the U.K. Migraine in Primary Care Advisors (4), provide evidence for and recommend a strategy of individualized care for migraine. The therapy is chosen on the basis of the historic pattern ...References1. Snow V, Weiss K, Wall EM, Mottur-Pilson C. Pharmacologic management of acute attacks of migraine and prevention of migraine headache. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:840-9. [PMID: 12435222] LinkGoogle Scholar2. Silberstein SD. Practice parameter: evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2000;55:754-62. [PMID: 10993991] Available at www.neurology.org/cgi/reprint/55/6/754.pdf. Google Scholar3. Bedell AW, Cady RK, Diamond ML, Farmer KU, Friesen CP, Johnson JM, et al . Patient-Centered Strategies for Effective Management of Migraine. Springfield, MO: Primary Care Network; 2000. Google Scholar4. Dowson AJ, Lipscombe S, Sender J, Rees T, Watson D. New guidelines for the management of migraine in primary care. Curr Med Res Opin. 2002;18:414-39. [PMID: 12487508] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Lipton RB, Diamond S, Reed M, Diamond ML, Stewart WF. Migraine diagnosis and treatment: results from the American Migraine Study II. Headache. 2001;41:638-45. [PMID: 11554951] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Stone AM, Lainez MJ, Sawyer JP. Stratified care vs step care strategies for migraine: the Disability in Strategies of Care (DISC) Study: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2000;284:2599-605. [PMID: 11086366] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From The King's Headache Service, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom; Headache Care Center and Primary Care Network, Springfield, MO 65804; New England Center for Headache, Stamford, CT 06902; Mercy Health Research, St. Louis, MO 63017; and Markham Headache and Pain Treatment Center, Unionville, Ontario L3R OW7, Canada. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoPharmacologic Management of Acute Attacks of Migraine and Prevention of Migraine Headache Vincenza Snow , Kevin Weiss , Eric M. Wall , Christel Mottur-Pilson , and Metrics 16 March 2004Volume 140, Issue 6Page: W-26KeywordsAspirinDrug therapyDrugsHeadachesMigraineNSAIDsPharmacoeconomicsPrimary care physiciansSubcutaneous injectionsVomiting ePublished: 16 March 2004 Issue Published: 16 March 2004 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2004 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.011 |
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".