Evidence Hub

Reconceptualizing autonomic function testing in migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Antun R. Pavelić, K. Zebenholzer, C. Wöber

The Journal of Headache and Pain, 2024

424 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Background Autonomic nervous system (ANS) testing has aided in our ability to evaluate autonomic dysfunction in migraine patients. We reviewed the literature in multiple databases which investigate ANS function in migraine patients and healthy subjects. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the respective deep breathing, Valsalva manoeuvre, orthostatic and isometric challenge results, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statements. Results Seven articles met all inclusion criteria. Fixed-effects meta-analysis showed migraine patients ( n = 424), collectively, had lower interictal autonomic test results compared with healthy controls ( n = 268). In detail, this was true for the standardized mean difference (g) of deep breathing (g= -0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.48, -0.16), orthostatic challenge (g= -0.28; 95% CI -0.44, -0.13) and isometric challenge (g= -0.55; 95% CI -0.71, -0.39) and for the difference of means (MD) of the Valsalva ratio (MD = -0.17; 95% CI -0.23, -0.10). Conclusions Interictal ANS dysfunction can be identified in migraine patients when compared to healthy controls. These findings indicate the importance to evaluate ANS function in migraine patients - especially, as migraine-specific prophylactic therapies (such as anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies) may affect the function of the ANS.

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: 424 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