MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415407936 · doi:10.1177/03331024251388377

International Headache society evidence-based guidelines on the use of non-invasive neuromodulation devices for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine

2025· review· en· W4415407936 on OpenAlexaff
Hsiangkuo Yuan, Serena L. Orr, Mohammad Al‐Mahdi Al‐Karagholi, Messoud Ashina, Fred Cohen, Hans‐Christoph Diener, David W. Dodick, Rigmor Jensen, Michael J. Marmura, Daniele Martinelli, Manjit Matharu, Anja Sofie Petersen, Patricia Pozo‐Rosich, Simona Sacco, Lucy Simmonds, Cristina Tassorelli, Stewart J. Tepper, Gisela M. Terwindt, Shuu‐Jiun Wang, Jiunn‐Tyng Yeh, Stephen D. Silberstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersAllerganIpsenH. Lundbeck A/STaipei Veterans General HospitalStichting DioraphteNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekPfizerMinistero della SaluteShanghai Educational Development FoundationEli Lilly and CompanyFondazione Italiana Sclerosi MultiplaBiogenMinistry of Education, IndiaEuropean CommissionAmgenTeva Pharmaceutical Industries
KeywordsMigraineQuality of evidenceRandomized controlled trialNeuromodulationEvidence-based medicineClinical trialSystematic reviewMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectiveTo develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for non-invasive neuromodulation devices in acute and preventive migraine treatment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted across six databases from 1946 to April 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating Food and Drug Administration-cleared or Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked non-invasive neuromodulation devices were included. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and recommendations were developed through consensus following GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. The working group comprised 15 senior members and six junior members.ResultsFrom 1536 initial records, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were finally used to develop evidence-based recommendations. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Weak recommendations were issued for SAVI Dual, Cefaly, Relivion, and Nerivio in the treatment of acute migraine attacks, and for gammaCore Sapphire, Cefaly, and Nerivio in the preventive migraine treatment. Other cleared devices received no recommendations or have no eligible studies for the GRADE assessment. The primary limitations across studies included imprecision due to small sample sizes and various methodological concerns. Additionally, expert consensus recommendations were developed for devices and clinical scenarios not adequately covered by randomized controlled trials, including potential applications in pediatric populations, vestibular migraine, chronic migraine, menstrual migraine, and medication overuse headache.ConclusionNon-invasive neuromodulation devices offer promising alternatives to drug treatment for migraine management. These devices are safe and generally well tolerated and devoid of drug interactions. While current evidence quality varies, ongoing research and technological advancements show encouraging potential. Future studies should adhere to International Headache Society guidelines for neuromodulation device trials, address proper sham controls and blinding assessment, and account for patient adherence challenges in device use. Expanded insurance coverage would enhance cost-effectiveness and device accessibility. These guidelines provide a framework for clinical decision-making while highlighting areas requiring further research.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0290.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCephalalgiaSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207