Evidence Hub

Efficacy of a dual task protocol on neurophysiological and clinical outcomes in migraine: a randomized control trial

Deodato M, Granato A, Buoite Stella A, Martini M, Marchetti E, Lise I, Galmonte A, Murena L et al.

Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024

10 participants · 23 citations

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a dual task protocol in people with episodic migraine with respect to both active exercises only and cognitive task only treatments, concerning some neurophysiological and clinical outcomes. A randomized control trial was adopted in people with episodic migraine without aura. Some neurophysiological and clinical outcomes were collected (t0): resting motor threshold (rMT), short intracortical inhibition (SICI) and facilitation (ICF), pressure pain threshold (PPT), trail making test (TMT), frontal assessment battery (FAB), headache-related disability (MIDAS) and headache parameters. Then, participants were randomized into three groups: active exercise only (n = 10), cognitive task only (n = 10) and dual task protocol (n = 10). After 3 months of each treatment and after 1-month follow-up the same neurophysiological and clinical outcomes were revaluated. A significant time x group effect was only found for the trapezius muscle (p = 0.012, pη2 = 0.210), suggesting that PPT increased significantly only in active exercise and dual task protocol groups. A significant time effect was found for rMT (p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.473), MIDAS (p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.426), TMT (p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.338) and FAB (p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.462). A repeated measures ANOVA for SICI at 3 ms highlighted a statistically significant time effect for the dual task group (p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.629), but not for the active exercises group (p = 0.565, pη2 = 0.061),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, 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: 10 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