Efficacy and Safety of Migraine Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objectives of this study are to assess the efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve surgery for migraine headaches and to bibliometrically analyze all anatomical studies relevant to migraine surgery. Summary Background Data: Migraines rank as the second leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite the availability of conservative management options, individuals suffer from refractive migraines which are associated with poor quality of life. Migraine surgery, defined as the peripheral nerve decompression/trigger site deactivation, is a relatively novel treatment strategy for refractory migraines. Methods: EMBASE and the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) were systematically searched for relevant articles according to the PRISMA guidelines. Data was extracted from studies which met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses were performed to assess complication rates. Meta-analyses were run using the random effects model for overall effects and within subgroup fixed-effect models were used. Results: A total of 68 studies (38 clinical, 30 anatomical) were included in this review. There was a significant overall reduction in migraine intensity ( P < 0.001, SE = 0.22, I 2 = 97.9), frequency ( P < 0.001, SE = 0.17, I 2 = 97.7), duration ( P < 0.001, SE = 0.15, I 2 = 97), and migraine headache index (MHI, P < 0.001, SE = 0.19, I 2 = 97.2) at follow-up. A total of 35 studies reported on migraine improvement (range: 68.3%–100% of participants) and migraine elimination (range: 8.3%–86.5% of participants). 32.1% of participants in the clinical studies reported complications for which the most commonly reported complications being paresthesia and numbness, which was mostly transient, (12.11%) and itching (4.89%). Conclusion: This study demonstrates improved migraine outcomes and an overall decrease in MHI as well as strong evidence for the safety profile and complication rate of migraine surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".