Tolerability of pharmacological agents in the treatment of headache following brain injury: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While systematic reviews have examined medication effectiveness for post-traumatic headache (PTH), they have not assessed tolerability. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review to characterize the adverse effects of pharmacotherapy for PTH. METHODS: CINAHL, CMA Infobase, Cochrane Library, Embase, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, PEDro, PsycInfo, Scopus, SportDiscus, TRIP and the University of York Center for Reviews and Dissemination were searched. Studies meeting these criteria were included 1) English language, 2) involved humans with traumatic brain injury (TBI), 3) a medication for PTH was administered and 4) reported tolerability outcomes. Author(s), publication year, country of origin, study design, sample demographics, medication type, comparator, dose, treatment duration, adverse effect type and rate, discontinuation rate, and effectiveness outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: The search yielded 2941 records; 11 studies were included (n = 324 subjects). All subjects had mild TBI except for one with moderate TBI. The following therapies were examined 1) abortive (dihydroergotamine N = 1; metoclopramide N = 1; indomethacin N = 3), 2) prophylactic (divalproex sodium N = 1; amantadine N = 1; erenumab N = 2; amitriptyline N = 2). No serious adverse effects occurred. Observed adverse effects overlap with common symptoms of TBI. CONCLUSION: The unique needs of people with TBI must be considered when instituting pharmacotherapy. More studies specifically evaluating medication tolerability in PTH are needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".