Evidence Hub

Comparison of ocular posterior segment parameters in the pediatric population with migraine without aura and tension-type headache

Kıvrak U, Köle MT, Kandemir İ, Kaytan İ

The Turkish journal of pediatrics, 2024

31 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the posterior ocular structure parameters in children with migraine without aura (MWA), tension-type headache (TTH), and a healthy control group.

METHODS: The study included 31 patients with MWA, 29 patients with TTH, and 38 healthy controls between 6 and 18 years of age. For all participants, the detailed eye examination and measurements including peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness, central macular thickness (CMT), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SCT), macular vessel densities and foveal avascular zone (FAZ) parameters measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and OCT-angiography (OCTA), were obtained from the patient files.

RESULTS: The mean age was 12.1±3.3 years in MWA patients, 12.4±2.8 years in TTH patients, and 11.9±3.8 years in the healthy controls (p=0.844). Among the groups, the mean pRNFL thickness, CMT, and SCT values were lowest in the MWA group. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.621, p=0.854 and p=0.201, respectively). The mean and four-quadrant (superior, inferior, temporal, nasal) pRNFL thicknesses, the CMT, and the SCT were not statistically significant between the groups (p=0.621, p=0.500, p=0.186, p=0.565, p=0.744, p=0.854 and p=0.201, respectively). The macular vascular densities were lower in MWA patients than in the other two groups, and there was a statistically significant difference between the groups only in the nasal quadrant of the deep retinal…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 31 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