Evidence Hub

Investigation of Sensory and Neuropsychological Parameters in Migraine Sufferers: A Cross-Sectional Study with Negative Findings

B. Taxer, Wanda Lauth, H. von Piekartz, E. Trinka, Stefan Leis

Neurological Therapeutics, 2025

45 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Migraine headache not only is associated with high levels of suffering but also represents a considerable socioeconomic challenge. It is linked to various psychological and physiological impairments, including sensorimotor and somatosensory dysfunction, like those observed in other persistent pain syndromes. This study aims to determine whether individuals with high-frequency episodic (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM) exhibit differences in somatosensory perception compared to healthy individuals and to explore potential correlations with neuropsychological features. Using a cross-sectional design, we assessed individuals with HFEM or CM (n = 45) and healthy controls (n = 25) using quantitative sensory testing (QST), conditioned pain modulation testing and neuropsychological questionnaires such as the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Data from 45 participants (39 females) with HFEM or CM and a healthy control group of 25 individuals (21 female) were analysed. Median (range) number of monthly headache days of was 12.3 (6) in the migraine group. Statistically significant differences were found only in the assessment of central sensitization (p < 0.0010) but not for QST parameters. Correlations with QST parameters were generally weak, only the wind-up ratio (WUR) showing weak to moderate monotonic associations with both emotion- and somatosensory-associated parameters. Overall, the results provided no evidence of significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 45 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