Evidence Hub

Prognosis of headache in children: a 25-year follow-up

Lopes CFR, Dos Santos TP, Martins IP

Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2022

47 participants

Abstract

AIM: To describe the natural history, evaluate the long-term prognosis, and identify predictors of a favorable outcome of childhood migraines in a cohort of children who had been diagnosed with migraine 25 years before.

METHODS: One hundred eighteen children with headache (ages 2 to 15), observed in a headache outpatient clinic of a University Hospital in 1994, by one of the authors, were revaluated in 2019/2020 by a standardized telephone interview specifying headache characteristics, treatment, precipitants, and family history. Headache diagnosis at follow-up was based on ID-Migraine and confirmed by a semistructured interview.

RESULTS: Revaluation was achieved for 88 (75%) patients (43 with migraine), 47 women and age average 41.2 ± 3.2. Over the follow-up (average 25.5 years), 33% of the patients had experienced remission, 41% maintained the same diagnosis, and 26% evolved into a different headache. Sixty six percent reported an improvement. Only eight patients were attending regular consultations because of headache. Male sex came out as the only predictor of a favorable outcome.

CONCLUSION: Most patients (66%) with pediatric headache continue to experience headache although reporting a significant improvement. Boys tended to remit more often than girls. This data suggests that age, genetics, and hormonal factors may play an important role in migraine phenotypic expression.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 47 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