Evidence Hub

Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, Kokoti L, Christensen RH, Al-Khazali HM, Deligianni CI, Tomlinson A et al.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024

89 participants · 70 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective To compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, as well as websites of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies without language restrictions until 24 June 2023. Methods Screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for the primary analyses. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were pain-free at two hours post-dose and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from two to 24 hours post-dose, both without the use of rescue drugs. Certainty of the evidence was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. Vitruvian plots were used to summarise findings. An international panel of clinicians and people with lived experience of migraine co-designed the study and interpreted the findings. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Double blind randomised trials of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Results 137 randomised controlled trials comprising 89 445 participants allocated to one of 17…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 89 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free