Pregabalin for the Management of Cervicogenic Headache: A Double Blind Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the effects of pregabalin relative to placebo in patients with chronic unilateral cervicogenic headache. Primary and secondary end points: To assess the change from baseline in the frequency of cervicogenic headache days per 28-day period between placebo and treatment group. To assess the change from baseline in the intensity of headache, and health outcome measures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, evaluating the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in patients with cervicogenic headache. PROCEDURES: The study consisted of two phases. A baseline of -28 days and a double-blind placebo-controlled phase: with an escalation and maintenance phase, during which patients remained at their highest dose until the end of the study, at Day 86. RESULTS: Forty one patients were randomized, predominantly females, with a mean age of 52 years old. At screening, both groups had, on average, 26 headache-days per month. By the final phase of the study, the number of headache days dropped to 16 per month for the pregabalin group while remaining stable for the placebo group (p=0.037). No serious adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: In this study, primary objectives were achieved with a statistically significant change of ten days in frequency of headache days; with minor side effects that were well tolerated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".