Browsing by Subject "Headache"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Agreement Between a Daily Electronic Headache Diary and Self-Report Questionnaire from a Dose-Response Randomized Controlled Trial of Spinal Manipulation Therapy for Cervicogenic Headache
    (2016-07) Hanson, Linda
    Objective: To determine if a minimally burdensome, easy to administer self-report questionnaire based on recall can be used interchangeably with a gold-standard headache diary to measure headache outcomes in an adult cervicogenic headache (CGH) population. Design: Secondary analysis of outcomes collected in a prospective, parallel group, observer blinded dose-response randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation for CGH (R01AT006330). Setting: General population in Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan region (MN, USA) Participants: 18 years of age and older with a history of chronic CGH (5 headache days per month for three months) and a pain intensity of ≥ 3 (0-10) who are otherwise in good health at baseline. Measurements: A daily, electronic headache diary (gold standard) and self-report questionnaire based on recall are used to ascertain headache frequency, measured in days, and intensity, measured using the 11 point Likert scale (0-10), collected over four weeks at baseline. Analysis: Baseline characteristics are summarized using descriptive statistics. The Bland Altman method is used to assess agreement, including limits of agreement (mean difference ± 2SDs). Linear regression is used to evaluate the presence of proportional bias. A two-tailed t-test is used as a measure of inference for mean differences between measures. Results: 87 participants are included in this analysis. The mean difference (SD) and limits of agreement (LOA) for CGH frequency and intensity are 0.77 (4.3) days (LOA: -7.6 - 9.1) and 0.14 (0.8) points (LOA: -1.43 - 1.70), respectively. Linear regression shows evidence of proportional bias for headache intensity (β=0.286, 95% CI 0.01-0.27, p=0.000). Group differences between the questionnaire and diary were not statistically significant: frequency t(86) = 1.69, p=0.09 and intensity t(86)=1.6, p=0.11. Conclusions: There is a lack of agreement between the questionnaire and electronic diary for measuring headache frequency and intensity. It is not recommended to use the questionnaire in lieu of the gold-standard daily headache diary for measuring headache outcomes in clinical research. A self-report questionnaire based on recall may be appropriate however to inform CGH management in clinical settings.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Migraine with Aura: More Than Just a Bad Headache?
    (2010-07-22) Tyner, Harmony
    Migraine with aura is common among women in the primary care setting. In addition to being uncomfortable and inconvenient, migraine with aura is also an independent risk factor for stroke in some women, particularly those below the age of 55, with low blood pressure and cholesterol. This patient education tool is a tri-fold brochure designed to help the reader identify who is at risk, how big the risk is, and what can be done to mitigate the risk of stroke in women who experience migraine with aura.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Migraine: A Guide For Patients
    (2008-04-07) Freeman, Laura
    Migraine headaches are common in the primary care setting. Young adult patients experiencing new onset headaches are often puzzled by how to differentiate migraines from other types of headaches. On the other hand, patients who have suffered from migraines for many years are often frustrated by the suboptimal relief of their pain. This patient education tool gives the reader a general idea of what migraines are, what causes them, and what different treatment modalities are available. Websites where patients may investigate specific questions are provided.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Minor Head Trauma – what should I look for?
    (2009-08-20) Sibley, Ted
    If a patient has a minor head injury and a Glascow Coma Scale of 15, then there are certain identifiable risk factors that need to be evaluated for to determine the need for further imaging. These risk factors include: Loss of Consciousness, Post-Traumatic Amnesia, Seizure, Confusion, Focal Neurological Deficit, Vomiting, Headache, Skull Fracture, age over 60, or patient with a coagulopathy. If two or more of these risk factors are present, then patient will need neuroimaging. If only one risk factor is present, then it is up to the physican to determine if patient needs neuroimaging.