Evidence Hub

Migraine and the risk of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sibiao Lu, Xiaojing Ye, Sitong Chen, Jisheng Zhang, Tianyi Sun, Xianming Lin

Frontiers in Neurology, 2026

3,625,071 participants

Abstract

Background Migraine and glaucoma are prevalent and burdensome conditions worldwide, yet the evidence linking them remains inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize available evidence on their association and investigate sources of heterogeneity. Methods We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to April 8, 2026, for cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies examining the migraine-glaucoma link. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was explored via subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality checklist. Publication bias was evaluated via funnel plots, Egger’s test, and trim-and-fill analysis. Results Nineteen studies involving 3,625,071 participants were incorporated. The pooled analysis demonstrated a significant positive association between migraine and glaucoma risk (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.20–1.37), with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 46.2%). Subgroup analyses indicated stronger associations in studies from America, clinic-based settings, those using self-reported migraine diagnosis and those with higher female participant proportions (≥60%). Egger’s test suggested potential publication bias. Following trim-and-fill adjustment (imputing eight potentially missing studies), the pooled estimate…

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: 3,625,071 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