MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155860297 · doi:10.1185/030079904x10142

Migraine treatment strategies: the global Migraine And Zolmitriptan Evaluation (MAZE) survey – phase IV*

2004· article· en· W2155860297 on OpenAlexaff
E. Anne MacGregor, Jan Lewis Brandes, Astrid Gendolla, Rose Giammarco

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsTriptansMedicineMigrainePharmacyMigraine treatmentZolmitriptanRizatriptanFamily medicineSumatriptanPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine which medications UK migraineurs have access to and assess the usage of these products in a 'real-life' setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected using an online questionnaire, which subjects were directed to by advertisements in pharmacies, a UK national newspaper, on the internet and information on the Migraine Action Association website and newsletters. Respondents were eligible for inclusion if attacks fulfilled International Headache Society criteria for migraine and/or if previously diagnosed by a physician as having migraine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents were asked to specify which products had been prescribed or purchased for migraine treatment. The pattern of use of these products was determined, including the reasons why respondents chose particular products to treat attacks. RESULTS: Of 3072 eligible respondents, the majority had purchased a variety of over-the-counter (OTC) medicines for treatment of attacks. Eighty-seven per cent had been diagnosed by a physician and were prescribed multiple products (average 1.68); 45% received triptans, but 26% were still prescribed products that were also available OTC. Over half (52%) of respondents initially used an OTC medicine to treat the last migraine attack. However, 73% required a second dose/product, mainly as a result of lack of efficacy of the first dose/product. Respondents using triptans were less likely to require a second dose/product than those not using triptans (52% vs. 78%, respectively). The two main reasons for choosing a triptan to treat an attack were the need for quick control and the severity of the attack. Satisfaction with regard to migraine medication was higher among triptan-users than nontriptan users. CONCLUSIONS: Medicines that are available OTC are often used as first-line therapy for migraine despite many migraineurs having access to prescription therapies such as triptans. Many migraineurs require a second dose/product, possibly indicating sub-optimal treatment efficacy. Physicians should consider the range of migraine-specific treatments available, including triptans, in order to develop a treatment plan that is based on the patient's needs and preferences.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.318
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207