The association between melatonin and episodic migraine: A pilot network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the prophylactic effects with exogenous melatonin supplementation and pharmacotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although exogenous melatonin supplementation has been suggested to be effective for episodic migraine prophylaxis, there is no conclusive evidence comparing the efficacy of exogenous melatonin supplementation to the other FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for episodic migraine prophylaxis. The aim of the current network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy of exogenous melatonin supplementation in patients with episodic migraine. The randomized placebo-controlled trials or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) incorporating a placebo in the study designs were included in our analyses. All of the NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model. The primary outcome was changes in frequency of migraine days and response rate after migraine prophylaxis with melatonin supplementation or pharmacological interventions. We included 25 RCTs in total with 4499 patients (mean age = 36.0 years, mean female proportion = 78.9%). The NMA demonstrated that migraine prophylaxis with oral melatonin 3 mg/d (immediate-release) at bedtime was associated with the greatest improvement in migraine frequency [mean difference = -1.71 days, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.27 to -0.14 days compared to placebo] and the second highest response rate (odds ratio = 4.19, 95% CI = 1.46 to 12.00 compared to placebo). Furthermore, oral melatonin 3 mg (immediate-release) at bedtime was the most preferred pharmacological intervention among all of the investigated interventions when improvements in migraine frequency, response rate, dropout rate, and rates of any adverse events were taken into account. This pilot NMA suggests the potential prophylactic role of exogenous melatonin supplementation in patients with episodic migraine.
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 | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".