MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167411996 · doi:10.1177/0333102413508661

Comparative efficacy of triptans for the abortive treatment of migraine: A multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis

2013· review· en· W2167411996 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian Thorlund, Edward J. Mills, Ping Wu, Élodie Ramos, Anjan Chatterjee, Eric Druyts, Peter J. Goadsby

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcMaster University
FundersPfizer
KeywordsTriptansMedicineMigraineMeta-analysisMigraine treatmentAcute migraineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicinePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Migraine is the most common neurological condition in developed countries. The abortive treatment of migraine attacks is important both for quality of life and costs associated with illness. Triptans, serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, effectively relieve the pain, disability, and associated symptoms of migraine while improving health-related quality of life. Although a number of direct head-to-head triptan comparisons have been made, data for all possible permutations are not available, and unlikely to ever be so, although in clinical practice such information would be useful. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the relative efficacy of all available triptans to abort migraine headache among patients with previous adequate response to migraine treatments. METHODS: We included only double-blinded randomized clinical trials comparing triptans to either placebo or another triptan. Our primary outcomes were pain-free response at two hours and 24-hour sustained pain-free response, and our secondary outcomes were headache response at two hours and 24-hour sustained headache response. We used Bayesian multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses of seven triptans used in adult patients to abort migraine attacks. We applied a random-effects analysis with meta-regression adjusting for dose. Results are reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. RESULTS: We included data from 74 randomized clinical trials. All triptans were significantly superior to placebo for all outcomes, with the exception of naratriptan for 24-hour sustained pain-free response. Eletriptan consistently yielded the highest treatment effect estimates. For the two-hour endpoints, eletriptan was statistically significantly superior to sumatriptan, almotriptan, naratriptan, and frovatriptan for at least one of the two outcomes. Rizatriptan yielded the second highest treatment effects followed by zolmitriptan. For the 24-hour endpoints, eletriptan was statistically significantly superior to sumatriptan, rizatriptan, almotriptan, and naratriptan for at least one of the two outcomes. Frovatriptan data were not available at that endpoint. Further, the probability that eletriptan is the most likely of all triptans to produce a favorable outcome was 68% for pain-free response at two hours, and 54% for 24-hour sustained pain-free response. CONCLUSION: Triptans appear to offer differing treatment effects. In the populations studied eletriptan was most likely to produce pain-free responses that were sustained.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.062
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.427
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.055 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations130
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCephalalgiaSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207