Has the Phase of the Menstrual Cycle Been Considered in Studies Investigating Pressure Pain Sensitivity in Migraine and Tension-Type Headache: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to identify if the phase of the menstrual cycle was considered in observational studies comparing pressure pain sensitivity between women with migraine or tension-type headache (TTH) and headache-free women. METHODS: A systematic electronic literature search in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL databases was conducted. Observational studies including one or more groups with TTH and/or migraine comparing pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were included. The methodological quality (risk of bias) was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Authors, objectives, inclusion/exclusion criteria, size sample, female sample, tool to assess PPTs, mean age, and the use of any medication were extracted and analyzed independently by two authors. RESULTS: From a total of 1404 and 1832 identified articles for TTH and migraine, 30 and 18 studies satisfied the criteria and were included. Nineteen (63.4%) studies assessing TTH patients and eleven (61.1%) assessing migraine patients showed a high risk of bias. The most common flaws were attributed to improper selection of control and control over other additional factors. Based on the systematic review, just one study including TTH and one including migraine patients considered the menstrual cycle. CONCLUSION: The results of this scoping review identified that the phase of the menstrual cycle has been rarely considered in studies investigating sensitivity to pressure pain in primary headaches, such as TTH or migraine, although there is evidence showing the relevance of the phase of the menstrual cycle in pain perception.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".