MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377097120 · doi:10.1186/s10194-023-01594-1

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4377097120 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Lampl, Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink, Christina Deligianni, Raquel Gil‐Gouveia, Tanvir Jassal, Margarita Sánchez del Río, Uwe Reuter, Derya Uludüz, Jan Versijpt, Dena Zeraatkar, Simona Sacco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Headache and Pain · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersH. Lundbeck A/SBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungAmgenPfizerEuropean Stroke OrganisationTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesAstraZenecaAllerganEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineGabapentinDiscontinuationMigraineTopiramatePlaceboMeta-analysisAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineEpilepsyPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.043
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Headache and PainSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207