Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium L.) extract is a herbal remedy used for preventing attacks of migraine. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence from double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of feverfew versus placebo for preventing migraine. SEARCH STRATEGY: Publications describing (or which might describe) double-blind RCTs of feverfew extract for migraine were sought through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003); PREMEDLINE/MEDLINE (1966 to July 2003); EMBASE (1974 to July 2003); the trials register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive care group (July 2003); and AMED (1985 to July 2003). Manufacturers of feverfew were contacted and the bibliographies of identified articles checked for further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials assessing the efficacy of feverfew for preventing migraine were included. Trials using clinical outcome measures were included. Trials focusing exclusively on physiological parameters were excluded. There were no restrictions regarding the language of publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on patients, interventions, methods, outcome measures, results and adverse events were extracted systematically. Methodological quality was evaluated using the scoring system developed by Jadad and colleagues. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Disagreements concerning evaluation of individual trials were resolved through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials (343 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Results from these trials were mixed and did not convincingly establish that feverfew is efficacious for preventing migraine. Only mild and transient adverse events were reported in the included trials. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from randomised, double-blind trials to suggest an effect of feverfew over and above placebo for preventing migraine. It appears from the data reviewed that feverfew presents no major safety problems.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".