2014
DOI: 10.1111/head.12464
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Methodological Issues in Studying Trigger Factors and Premonitory Features of Migraine

Abstract: Establishing the relationship between antecedent events and headaches is a formidable challenge. Successfully addressing this challenge should provide insights into disease mechanisms and lead to new strategies for treatment. In the second paper in this series, we review the available literature on trigger factors and premonitory features.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
131
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(134 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
(184 reference statements)
1
131
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is difficult to study migraine trigger factors. Several study designs have been proposed, all associated with different limitations and methodological issues [12]. Retrospective studies are common, but include a risk of recall bias.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it is difficult to study migraine trigger factors. Several study designs have been proposed, all associated with different limitations and methodological issues [12]. Retrospective studies are common, but include a risk of recall bias.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Understanding the interactions that occur when processing multiple external stimuli and activation of the trigeminal system may help to explain migraine symptoms and mechanisms by which exposure to visual, auditory, and olfactory stimuli can trigger migraine attacks. However, identifying trigger factors or premonitory features that reliably predict headache onset in migraine remains an ongoing clinical challenge (Lipton et al, 2014; Pavlovic et al, 2014). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In part, this variability may reflect the variability in the symptomatology of preictal phase. To reduce such variability, the methodology to be used for assessing the prodromal symptoms should be considered carefully [15].…”
Section: Prevalencementioning
confidence: 99%