Sodium Valproate Versus Dopamine Antagonists for Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common primary headache disorder diagnosed in the emergency department (ED). This systematic review sought to compare the efficacy of sodium valproate (SV) to dopamine antagonists (DA) in relieving pain due to acute migraine. METHODS: Two research librarians helped create a search strategy including Embase, Ovid Medline, and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials from inception to June 1, 2020, updated May 19, 2021. Two investigators identified randomized control trials (RCTs) including adult patients with acute migraine presenting to the ED or acute clinical setting comparing SV to a DA with the aim of relieving pain. Primary outcome was headache relief at 1 hour from treatment. Secondary outcomes included pain relief at 24 hours, relief of associated symptoms (e.g. nausea, photo-/phonophobia, etc.), and need for rescue analgesia. Meta-analysis was performed and presented as odds ratios. RESULTS: Four RCTs with 470 patients were identified from an initial pool of 454 titles. Two studies compared SV to a DA alone and two compared SV to a DA plus one other agent (sumatriptan or dihydroergotamine). Three studies were included for meta-analysis. Pain relief had a pooled odds ratio of 1.14 at 1 hour and 0.42 at 24 hours. Three articles reporting the need for rescue analgesia had pooled odds ratio of 2.76. CONCLUSIONS: Sodium valproate is not more effective than DA at reducing migraine headache pain at 1 hour and less effective at 24 hours. Dopamine antagonists should be used over SV for the management of patients with acute 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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".