Evidence for efficacy of acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache: Methodological critique of randomised trials for oral treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Headache Society (IHS) provides guidance on the conduct of trials for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache (TTH), a common disorder with considerable disability. Electronic and other searches identified randomised, double-blind trials of oral drugs treating episodic TTH with moderate or severe pain at baseline, or that tested drugs at first pain onset. The aims were to review methods, quality, and outcomes reported (in particular the IHS-recommended primary efficacy parameter pain-free after 2 hours), and to assess efficacy by meta-analysis. We identified 58 reports: 55 from previous reviews and searches, 2 unpublished reports, and 1 clinical trial report with results. We included 40 reports of 55 randomised trials involving 12,143 patients. Reporting quality was generally good, with potential risk of bias from incomplete outcome reporting and small size; the 23 largest trials involved 82% of patients. Few trials reported IHS outcomes. The number needed to treat values for being pain-free at 2 hours compared with placebo were 8.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2 to 15) for paracetamol 1000 mg, 8.9 (95% CI 5.9 to 18) for ibuprofen 400mg, and 9.8 (95% CI 5.1 to 146) for ketoprofen 25mg. Lower (better) number needed to treat values were calculated for outcomes of mild or no pain at 2 hours, and patient global assessment. These were similar to values for these drugs in migraine. No other drugs had evaluable results for these patient-centred outcomes. There was no evidence that any one outcome was better than others. The evidence available for treatment efficacy is small in comparison to the size of the clinical problem.
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 | 0.515 | 0.788 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".