To compare the prevalence of co-morbid depression between patients with chronic primary headache syndromes and chronic posttraumatic headaches.
A prospective cross-sectional analysis of all patients presenting sequentially to a community-based general neurology clinic during a 2-year period for evaluation of chronic headache pain was conducted. Headache diagnosis was determined according to the International Headache Society's Headache Classification criteria. Depression was determined through a combination of scores on the clinician administered Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and patients' self-report. An additional group of patients who suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI) but did not develop post-traumatic headaches was included for comparison.
A total of 83 patients were included in the study: 45 with chronic primary headaches (24 with chronic migraine headaches, 21 with chronic tension headaches), 24 with chronic post-traumatic headaches, and 14 with TBI but no headaches. Depression occurred less frequently among those with chronic post-traumatic headaches (33.3%) compared to those with chronic migraine (66.7%) and chronic tension (52.4%) headaches (Chi-Square = 7.68; df = 3; p = 0.053), and did not significantly differ from TBI patients without headaches. A multivariate logistic regression model using depression as the outcome variable and including headache diagnosis, gender, ethnicity, and alcohol and illicit substance use was statistically significant (Chi-Square = 27.201; df = 10; p < 0.01) and identified primary headache (migraine and tension) diagnoses (Score = 7.349; df = 1; p = 0.04) and female gender (Score = 15.281; df = 1; p < 0.01) as significant predictor variables. The overall model accurately predicted presence of co-morbid depression in 74.7% of the cases.
Co-morbid depression occurs less frequently among patients with chronic post-traumatic headaches and TBI without headaches than among those with chronic primary headaches.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective
Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of therapeutic patient education for migraine. MethodsA literature search of multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL, and PsychINFO) was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) published in the English and Spanish languages up to and including May 2013. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, conducted the quality assessment (Delphi list), and extracted the results. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method was used throughout the systematic review and meta-analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for relevant outcome measures (headache frequency, headache disability, self-efficacy, depressive symptoms, and quality of life) and pooled in a meta-analysis using the random effects model. ResultsFourteen RCTs were included in the systematic review. Only nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. The median quality score was 6.141.29 (range: 5-9). There was strong-moderate evidence for intermediate-term effectiveness of therapeutic patient education on headache frequency (five studies: N=940, SMD=-0.24, 95% CI of -0.48 to -0.01, P=0.03), headache disability (four studies: N=799, SMD=-1.02, 95% CI of -1.95 to -0.08, P=0.03), and quality of life (three studies: N=674, SMD=0.36, 95% CI of 0.05-0.67, P=0.02). There was no evidence for either short-term or intermediate-term effectiveness of therapeutic patient education on self-efficacy or depressive symptoms. Conclusion
This systematic review revealed strong-moderate evidence for intermediate-term effectiveness of therapeutic patient education for migraine. Further high-quality RCTs are required for conclusive determination of its effectiveness.
Pain Medicine 09/2014; 15(9). DOI:10.1111/pme.12505 · 2.30 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.