MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Intervention in the Treatment of Migraine: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2002· article· en· W1987946443 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Lemstra, Brad Stewart, W. P. Olszynski

Bibliographic record

VenueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMultidisciplinary approachIntervention (counseling)MigraineMedicinePhysical therapyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatrySurgerySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary management program for migraine treatment in a group, low cost, nonclinical setting. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, clinical trial. BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies document the efficacy of pharmacological migraine management, it is unclear whether an effective long-term management approach exists. METHODS: Eighty men and women were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. The intervention group consisted of a neurologist and physical therapist intake and discharge, 18 group-supervised exercise therapy sessions, 2 group stress management and relaxation therapy lectures, 1 group dietary lecture, and 2 massage therapy sessions. The control group consisted of standard care with the patient's family physician. Outcome measures included self-perceived pain intensity, frequency, and duration; functional status; quality of life; health status; depression; prescription and nonprescription medication use; and work status. Outcomes were measured at the end of the 6-week intervention and at a 3-month follow-up. Results.-Forty-one of 44 patients from the intervention group and all 36 patients from the control group completed the study. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups before intervention. Intention to treat analysis revealed that the intervention group experienced statistically significant changes in self-perceived pain frequency (P =.000), pain intensity (P =.001), pain duration (P =.000), functional status (P =.000), quality of life (P =.000), health status (P =.000), pain related disability (P =.000), and depression (P =.000); these differences retained their significance at the 3-month follow-up. There were no statistically significant changes in medication use or work status. CONCLUSIONS: Positive health related outcomes in migraine can be obtained with a low cost, group, multidisciplinary intervention in a community based nonclinical setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations163
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face PainSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207