ArticlePDF Available

General physical impairments in migraine patients beyond cervical function

Springer Nature
Scientific Reports
Authors:
  • CSEU La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • CSEU La Salle; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Abstract and Figures

Previous research has focused on the possibility of cervical dysfunction in migraine patients, similar to what is observed in patients with tension-type headaches. However, there is no evidence concerning the physical function of other body regions, even though lower levels of physical activity have been reported among migraine patients. The aim of this study was to compare cervical and extra-cervical range of motion, muscular strength, and endurance, as well as overall levels of physical activity, between patients with chronic migraine (CM) and asymptomatic participants. The secondary objective included the analysis of associations between CM-related disability and various physical and psychological variables. A total of 90 participants were included in this cross-sectional study: 30 asymptomatic participants (AG) and 60 patients with CM. Cervical and lumbar range of motion, strength and endurance, as well as handgrip strength were measured. Headache-related disability, kinesiophobia, pain behaviors, physical activity level and headache frequency were assessed through a self-report. Lower values were found in CM vs AG for cervical and lumbar ranges of motion (p < 0.05; effect sizes ranging from 0.57 to 1.44). Also, for neck extension strength (p = 0.013; d = − 0.66), lumbar strength (p < 0.001; d = − 1.91) and handgrip strength (p < 0.001; d = − 0.98), neck endurance (p < 0.001; d = − 1.81) and lumbar endurance (p < 0.001; d = − 2.11). Significant differences were found for physical activity levels (p = 0.01; d = − 0.85) and kinesiophobia (p < 0.001; d = − 0.93) between CM and AG. Headache-related disability was strongly associated with headache frequency, activity avoidance, and rest, which together explained 41% of the variance. The main findings of this study suggest that patients with CM have a generalized fitness deficit and not specifically cervical dysfunction. These findings support the hypothesis that migraine patients have not only neck-related issues but also general body conditions.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
General physical impairments in
migraine patients beyond cervical
function
Roy La Touche 1,2,3, Teresa García-Pastor 4,7, Álvaro Reina-Varona 1,2,
Alba Paris-Alemany 2,3,5 & Mónica Grande-Alonso 6
Previous research has focused on the possibility of cervical dysfunction in migraine patients, similar to
what is observed in patients with tension-type headaches. However, there is no evidence concerning
the physical function of other body regions, even though lower levels of physical activity have
been reported among migraine patients. The aim of this study was to compare cervical and extra-
cervical range of motion, muscular strength, and endurance, as well as overall levels of physical
activity, between patients with chronic migraine (CM) and asymptomatic participants. The secondary
objective included the analysis of associations between CM-related disability and various physical
and psychological variables. A total of 90 participants were included in this cross-sectional study:
30 asymptomatic participants (AG) and 60 patients with CM. Cervical and lumbar range of motion,
strength and endurance, as well as handgrip strength were measured. Headache-related disability,
kinesiophobia, pain behaviors, physical activity level and headache frequency were assessed through
a self-report. Lower values were found in CM vs AG for cervical and lumbar ranges of motion (p < 0.05;
eect sizes ranging from 0.57 to 1.44). Also, for neck extension strength (p = 0.013; d = 0.66),
lumbar strength (p < 0.001; d = 1.91) and handgrip strength (p < 0.001; d = 0.98), neck endurance
(p < 0.001; d = 1.81) and lumbar endurance (p < 0.001; d = 2.11). Signicant dierences were
found for physical activity levels (p = 0.01; d = 0.85) and kinesiophobia (p < 0.001; d = 0.93)
between CM and AG. Headache-related disability was strongly associated with headache frequency,
activity avoidance, and rest, which together explained 41% of the variance. The main ndings of this
study suggest that patients with CM have a generalized tness decit and not specically cervical
dysfunction. These ndings support the hypothesis that migraine patients have not only neck-related
issues but also general body conditions.
Keywords Chronic migraine, Cervical region, Physical activity, Physical function, Migraine related disability
Migraine is a complex and multifactorial neurological disorder1 that can present as episodic or chronic,
depending on the frequency of the signs and symptoms2.
Epidemiologically, migraine is one of the most disabling disorders worldwide3. e prevalence of CM is
estimated to be between 1% and 2.2% of the general population4,5, and it has been reported that 3.1% of patients
with EM might progress to CM6.
Patients with migraine might experience neck discomfort and stiness during the various phases of the
migraine attack7. Recent evidence based on a meta-analytical analysis indicates that neck pain is a highly
prevalent symptom in patients with CM8 and has been reported as an even more prevalent symptom than
nausea9. ese and other ndings suggest that factors associated with cervical disability should be considered in
the prevention and treatment of migraine and suggest the need for further research10.
One of the most extensively studied aspects of the cervical region has been range of motion decits. e
results of these studies conrm that patients with CM and EM present decreased cervical range of motion
1Departamento de Fisioterapia, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios (CSEU) La Salle, Universidad Autónoma
de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 2Motion in Brains Research Group, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios (CSEU) La
Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 3Instituto de Dolor Craneofacial y Neuromusculoesquelético
(INDCRAN), Madrid, Spain. 4Facultad HM de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Madrid, Spain.
5Departamento de Radiología, Rehabilitación y Fisioterapia, Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología,
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal, s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
6Departamento de Cirugía, Ciencias Médicas y Sociales, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de
Henares, Spain. 7 Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain. email: albaparis@gmail.com
OPEN
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 1
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
compared with the asymptomatic population11,12. e data obtained for neck range of motion in patients with
migraine were 59.3° extension, 44.5° le lateral exion and 60.8° right rotation11, also reduced exion rotation
test mobility and reduced velocity of neck movements12. It has also been observed that limitations in range of
motion were related to migraine frequency and disability12.
Another cervical function characteristic found to be altered in patients with migraine is the strength and
endurance of the cervical musculature1315. e exor endurance was found to be a 25% reduced compared to
controls13. Regarding strength, a reduction of 4.4N/kg was observed in cervical extension force in patients with
migraine compared to asymptomatic participants14. is strength decit has been associated with cutaneous
allodynia15 and migraine frequency14. Also, signicantly greater coactivation of antagonist muscles (splenius
capitis muscle) was found among EM and CM compared to controls14.
Although the ndings on cervical function disorders in migraine are important, these studies have a
signicant limitation in the assessment of strength and range of motion was evaluated only in the cervical
region, which questions the specicity of the results, especially considering that recent evidence reports that
patients with migraine have lower levels of physical activity than the asymptomatic population16. Indeed, lower
cardiovascular tness levels had higher long-term risk of developing migraine17. ese ndings support our
hypothesis that decits in physical variables such as strength and range of motion occur at a general level and
not only in the cervical region.
In patients with migraine, avoidance of physical activity has been reported as a behavioral response driven by
cognitive factors, such as fear of exacerbating headaches18. is avoidance is further inuenced by anxiety18 and
fear of movement12,19, both of which are closely linked to a reduction in physical activity and limited movement
of the cervical region and head.
ese ndings suggest two hypotheses: (1) Migraine patients exhibit general, not localized, functional
decits in strength and range of motion, linked to reduced physical activity; and (2) Migraine-related disability
correlates with functional decits, low physical activity, and psychological factors. is study aims to provide a
comprehensive understanding of migraine patients, potentially inuencing treatment strategies. Unlike previous
cervical-focused research, it employs a thorough evaluation of overall physical condition. e primary objective
is to compare cervical region strength and range of motion with other areas in CM patients and asymptomatic
participants. Secondary goals involve analyzing CM disability’s association with physical/psychological factors
and comparing physical activity levels between CM patients and asymptomatic individuals.
Materials and methods
Study design
is cross-sectional study employed purposive sampling, adhering to STROBE guidelines20. Participants
received comprehensive information and provided voluntary informed consent. Ethical principles following the
Declaration of Helsinki were upheld21, with approval from the Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La
Salle ethics committee (CSEULS-PI-034/2019).
Participants
e participants included in the study were required to meet the proposed inclusion criteria. Male and female
adult patients aged between 18 and 65years were recruited and were required to have a good command of the
Spanish language. Participants in the CM group were recruited from a clinic specializing in treating patients
with temporomandibular disorders, headaches, and craniofacial pain (Madrid, Spain). e patients had to have a
previous medical diagnosis and meet the CM criteria of the International Classication for Headache Disorders22,
which are as follows: (a) headache frequency 15days per month; (b) migraine symptom frequency 8d ays;
(c) chronicity 3months; and (d) a history of migraine starting before the age of 50years. e following cases
were excluded: (a) previous cervical and cranial trauma; (b) infectious or tumor diseases; and (c) recent surgical
procedures (in the previous 12months).
e control group consisted of asymptomatic individuals with no history of head and neck pain for at least
one year and who did not require any medical treatment or physiotherapy. Participants in this group were
intentionally age- and gender-matched with those in the CM group to achieve similar groups. e control group
was recruited through social networking from a university population.
Procedure
Aer giving their consent to participate in the study, all participants were given a set of questionnaires, which
included a socio-demographic assessment and were asked to complete a series of self-reports: Head Impact
Test (HIT-6)23, International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)24, Tampa scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-
11)25, Pain Catastrophism Scale (PCS)26, chronic pain self-ecacy scale (CPSS)27, Pain Behaviors Questionnaire
(PBQ)28.
Aer the participants had completed the self-report measured, the following physical measured were
assessed: cervical range of motion, lumbar range of motion, cervical exor muscle endurance, maximal isometric
contraction of the cervical exor and extensor muscles was assessed during cervical exion and extension
movements, maximal lumbar isometric contraction and handgrip dynamometry. e assessor was a physical
therapist blinded to the participants’ condition. All patients’ assessments were done during the interictal periods.
Physical measures
Cervical range of motion
Cervical range of motion (CROM) was measured in degrees using a cervical range-of-motion device referred
to as a CROM (Performance Attainment Associates, Lindstrom, MN)29, which consists of three independent
inclinometers, one for each plane of motion, attached to a plastic frame similar to a pair of glasses. e cervical
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 2
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
ranges of motion measured were (1) exion–extension, (3) right-le lateral exion, (5) right-le rotation. CROM
was measured with participants seated in a chair with a backrest, maintaining a 90-degree angle at both the hips
and knees, and feet at on the oor to ensure a standardized and stable position. Each movement was performed
three times, and the average value was used for analysis. e CROM has proven to be a valid and reliable tool for
measuring the range of motion of the cervical region30.
Lumbar range of movement
Lumbar exion range of motion was assessed in degrees using a digital inclinometer based on the iHandy mobile
application. To perform the measurement, the assessor holds the mobile device over the participants’ sacrum
and applies light pressure while the participants perform a lumbar exion movement. Each movement was
repeated three times, and the average value was used for analysis. is measurement has been shown to have
good intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, with an intra-class correlation coecient 0.8631.
Endurance of the cervical musculature
e endurance of the cervical musculature was measured with a test that primarily assesses the endurance of the
neck exor muscles, which has good reliability32. Participants were placed in the supine position. e examiner
raised the participants’ head 2.5cm above the couch and instructed the participants to hold this position for as
long as possible. e examiner then let go of the participants’ head, leaving it suspended, held in place only by
the participants’ muscle exertion. e test was nished when the participant could no longer maintain the head
in the required position, and the endurance was recorded in seconds. e test was performed two times, and the
average value was used for analysis.
Endurance of the lumbar musculature
Endurance of the lumbar musculature was assessed using the Ito test. Participants lay prone with a 10-cm pillow
beneath their lower abdomen to reduce lumbar lordosis. With arms parallel to the body axis, they raised their
upper body to a 15° angle, maintaining a neutral cervical spine position, and both feet on the couch. e test
continued until fatigue, with termination upon a > 10° decrease in trunk angle. Endurance was measured in
seconds. Two brief practice attempts (5s) ensured correct execution. e test was performed twice, and the best
result was used for analysis. e Ito test is a valid and reliable measure of lumbar extensor muscle strength33.
Cervical strength
Maximal isometric contraction (MIC) of cervical exion and extension was assessed using a calibrated
handheld digital dynamometer (MicroFET 2 dynamometer, Hoggan Health Industries, Salt Lake City, UT).
e dynamometer, with a cushioned pad, was placed on the area to be assessed. For exion MIC, participants
were supine, with the pad on their forehead, performing maximal craniocervical exion. For extension MIC,
participants were prone, with the pad on the occipital area, resisting the assessor’s opposing force. Each
movement was tested three times, with each attempt lasting 5s, and a 60-s rest between attempts. e MIC was
measured in kilograms of force (kgf), ensuring consistent reliability34.
Lumbar strength
e extension MIC of the lumbar region was measured using a foot dynamometer (Takei TM 5420, Takei
Scientic Instruments CO., Niigata City, Japan). is device has been validated and can be used to determine leg
and back strength in held positions, provided that the measurement protocol is standardized (r, 0.91; p < 0.001)35.
For the measurement, participants let their arms hang down to hold the dynamometer’s bar with both hands,
palms facing the body. e dynamometer chain was adjusted so that the knees were exed to approximately
110°. e evaluator took 3 measurements, each in kgf, and the mean was used in the data analysis.
Handgrip strength
Isometric handgrip strength was measured using a JAMAR hydraulic handgrip dynamometer (Sammons
Preston, Rolyon, Bolingbrook, IL), following the procedure recommended by Roberts et al. Participants sat
upright with feet at on the oor, elbows exed at 90°, and wrists and forearms in a neutral position36. Grip
strength was recorded three times on the dominant hand, in kgf, with a 30-s interval between measurements.
is test demonstrates excellent reliability across various populations and conditions3739.
Psychological and disability measures
Headache-related disability
Disability was assessed using the Spanish HIT-6, comprising 6 items to measure headache-related disability in
CM patients23. e questionnaire exhibits acceptable psychometric properties and validation for CM patients40.
Scores range from 36 to 78 points, categorized into four severity levels: little or no impact (36–49), some impact
(50–55), substantial impact (56–59), and severe impact (60–78).
Pain behaviors
e PBQ assesses pain-related behaviors, initially validated in headache patients41,42. e Spanish version,
validated in patients with migraine and tension-type headache, exhibits strong psychometric properties,
comprising 19 items across six factors: avoidance behaviors (5 items), active non-verbal complaint (4 items),
passive non-verbal complaint (3 items), verbal complaint (3 items), rest (2 items), and medication (2 items)28.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 3
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Fear of movement
We assessed fear of movement using the Spanish TSK-11, with good psychometric properties (Cronbach’s α,
0.81)25. It has 2 subscales: one for fear of physical activity and another for fear of harm. Each of 11 items was
scored 1–4 (1 =strongly disagree”, 2 =disagree”, 3 = “agree”, 4 =strongly agree”), yielding scores from 11 to 44.
Physical activity level
e IPAQ assessed participants’ physical activity, categorizing them into three levels (high, moderate, low/
sedentary) and estimating activity in METs. IPAQ’s psychometric properties are accepted; it has a reliability of
about 0.77 (95% CI 0.67–0.84)43.
Pain intensity
Self-reported pain intensity was assessed using the numerical pain scale (NPS) (0–10/10). A score of 0 indicates
“no pain, while a score of 10 indicates “maximum possible pain intensity”44.
Sample size
e sample size was estimated with G*Power 3.1.7 (G*Power of the University of Düsseldorf, Germany)45. A pilot
study was conducted with 16 patients with CM and 16 asymptomatic participants to determine dierences using
Student’s t-test and eect size to compare cervical muscle endurance variables and the handgrip dynamometry
pressure. e study employed an alpha error level of 0.05, a statistical power of 80% (1-B error) and an eect size
d (0.68 and 0.81). e estimated total sample size was 56 for the cervical muscle endurance variable and 40 for the
handgrip dynamometry variable; ultimately, the larger sample size (28 patients with CM and 28 asymptomatic
participants) was chosen. An additional 5% of the sample was included to allow for possible withdrawals that
may occur during the physical evaluation. For these comparisons, the sample was nally 60 participants.
e sample calculation required for the multiple regression analysis was performed taking into account the
use of 8 predictor variables, an alpha error level of 0.05, a statistical power of 99% (1-B error), an R2 of 0.2 and
an eect size f2 of 0.25, resulting in a total sample estimate of 65 patients with CM. e procedures followed for
this estimation are based on the guidelines outlined by Faul et al. (2009) for calculating sample sizes in studies
involving correlation and regression analyses46.
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed using SPSS statistical soware, version 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Statistical
analyses were performed at a 95% condence level; P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically signicant. To
compare descriptive statistics, physical variables and self-reports scores between the CM group and asymptomatic
participants t-test for independent samples was used and the chi-square test was used to compare categorical
variables. Eect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated for the outcome variables. According to Cohen’s method, the
eect size was classied as small (0.20–0.49), moderate (0.50–0.79) or large ( 0.8)47.
An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used, it included “physical activity level” as a covariate for between-
group comparisons of physical measures and kinesiophobia. For this analysis the eect size was estimated with
partial eta squared (ηp2).
e relationship between headache-related disability and physical and psychological variables in the CM
group was examined using Pearson’s correlation coecients. A Pearson correlation coecient > 0.60 indicated a
strong correlation, a coecient between 0.30 and 0.60 indicated a moderate correlation, and a coecient < 0.30
indicated a low or very low correlation48.
A stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate the strength of the association between
headache-related disability (criterion variable) and psychological, behavioral, and physical variables (predictor
variables). Only variables that obtained moderate correlations in the correlation analysis were included in the
regression model. We assessed multicollinearity in the models using the Variance Ination Factor (VIF). A
VIF near 1 implies minimal multicollinearity; values between 1 and 5 suggest moderate correlation among
predictors; and a VIF over 10 indicates signicant multicollinearity.
In the development of our multiple linear regression model, we have performed comprehensive diagnostic
analyses to verify its robustness and adherence to key assumptions.
e model’s evaluation began with an investigation into the homogeneity of variance, which is crucial for the
reliability of the regression estimates. A graphical approach was employed, plotting residuals against tted values
to visually inspect the data. is plot revealed a random dispersion of residuals with no apparent patterns or
funnels, leading us to conrm that the variance of the residuals is consistent across all levels of the independent
variables, thereby satisfying the homogeneity criterion.
Another critical assumption, the independence of observations, was rigorously tested using the Durbin-
Watson statistic. is test is instrumental in detecting any autocorrelation in the residuals that could compromise
the integrity of the regression analysis. A value of the statistic proximate to 2.0 was indicative of the absence of
autocorrelation, thereby upholding the model’s assumption of independent observations.
Moreover, the normality of the residuals’ distribution was scrutinized using Q-Q plots. ese plots provided
a visual assessment by comparing the distribution of the residuals to a perfectly normal distribution. e
alignment of the residuals along a straight line on the Q-Q plots suggested that the distribution of the residuals
aligns well with the assumption of normality.
Lastly, the linearity assumption was substantiated by examining scatter plots of observed versus predicted
values and normal P-P plots of standardized residuals. ese assessments disclosed a clear linear trajectory,
thereby reinforcing our condence in the linearity of the relationship modeled.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 4
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Results
e total study sample consisted of 95 participants (30 asymptomatic participants and 65 patients with CM) who
met the inclusion criteria. Statistically signicant dierences were found only in body mass index (which was
higher in the CM group) and in the level of physical activity measured in METS (p = 0.01) (the control group
were more active). ere were statistically signicant dierences in the subclassication according to the level of
physical activity (Fig.1). e statistics for the sociodemographic variables are presented in Table 1. All statistics
followed a normal distribution except for those representing physical activity.
Comparative analysis
In the comparative analysis, there were statistically signicant dierences in the variables of range of motion,
endurance and MIC for measurements in the cervical region and in other body segments (p < 0.05), and the
eect sizes of these comparisons were moderate-high in magnitude (Table 2), with the endurance-related
variables having the largest dierences (Fig.2).
With respect to the kinesiophobia variable (TSK-11) and the avoidance subscale, there were statistically
signicant dierences with a large eect size (TSK-11; p < 0.001; d = 0.93; Activity Avoidance, p = 0.001;
d = 0.86); as well as for the harm subscale although the eect size was moderate (p = 0.030; d = 0.57).
When adjusting with the physical activity covariate, only statistically signicant results where obtained for
the maximal isometric cervical exion strength (F = 8.05; p = 0.006; ηp2 = 0.12), maximal isometric cervical
extension strength (F = 9.00; p = 0.004; ηp2 = 0.14) and handgrip strength (F = 7.29; p = 0.009; ηp2 = 0.113).
Correlation analysis
Table 3 shows the Pearson correlation analysis. e highest correlations were between disability (HIT-6) and
frequency of headaches (HIT-6) (r = 0.51; p < 0.001); and between disability and the avoidance behaviors
subscale of the PBQ (r = 0.50; p < 0.001).
Fig. 1. Physical activity subclassication. e graph shows the subclassication of the physical activity levels of
both study groups.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 5
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Measures CM group
(n = 30) Asymptomatic
group (n = 30) Dierence of means (95%
CI) t-student; p-value; Eect size (d)Covariate: physical activity
F; p-value; Eta Squared (ηp2)
ROM
Cervical exion–extension (°) 99.36 ± 15.72 107.33 ± 11.76 7.96 ( 15.14 to 0.78) t = 2.22; p = 0.030; d = 0.57 F = 2.94; p = 0.091; ηp2 = 0.05
Cervical rotation (°) 113.22 ± 22.99 129.1 ± 20.17 15.3 ( 26.47 to 4.12) t = 2.74; p = 0.008; d = 0.71 F = 0.11; p = 0.739; ηp2 = 0.002
Cervical lateral exion (°) 71.43 ± 18.79 83.16 ± 10.56 11.73 ( 19.61 to 3.85) t = 2.98; p = 0.004; d = 0.77 F = 0.63; p = 0.429; ηp2 = 0.11
Lumbar exion (°) 36.04 ± 8.3 46.36 ± 5.71 10.32 ( 14.03 to 6.63) t = 5.60; p < 0.001; d = 1.44 F = 1.64; p = 0.205; ηp2 = 0.03
Muscular endurance
Cervical endurance (s) 22.53 ± 7.81 36.3 ± 7.41 13.76 ( 17.7 to 9.83) t = 7.01; p < 0.001; d = 1.81 F = 0.03; p = 0.864; ηp2 = 0.001
Lumbar endurance (s) 57.81 ± 27.44 155.58 ± 59.62 97.77 ( 121.76 to 73.78) t = 8.15; p < 0.001; d = 2.11 F = 0.28; p = 0.596; ηp2 = 0.005
Muscular strength
Cervical extension (Kgf) 21.16 ± 5.72 25.1 ± 6.18 3.93 ( 7.01 to 0.85) t = 2.55; p = 0.013; d = 0.66 F = 8.05; p = 0.006; ηp2 = 0.12
Cervical exion (Kgf ) 12.56 ± 4.02 16 ± 4.85 3.43 ( 5.73 to 1.13) t = 2.98; p = 0.004; d = 0.77 F = 9.00; p = 0.004; ηp2 = 0.14
Handgrip (Kgf) 33.88 ± 6.71 40.14 ± 5.94 6.25 ( 9.53 to 2.98) t = 3.82; p < 0.001; d = 0.98 F = 7.29; p = 0.009; ηp2 = 0.113
Lumbar extension (Kgf) 43.78 ± 13.42 75.71 ± 19.34 31.92 ( 40.55 to 23.31) t = 7.42; p < 0.001; d = 1.91 F = 0.98; p = 0.362; ηp2 = 0.02
Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) 27.63 ± 7.08 21.7 ± 5.52 5.93 (2.65 to 9.21) t = 3.61; p < 0.001; d = 0.93 F = 0.03; p = 0.859; ηp2 = 0.001
Harm_subscale 10.36 ± 3.51 8.66 ± 2.29 1.7 (0.16 to 3.23) t = 2.22; p = 0.030; d = 0.57 F = 0.004; p < 0.952; ηp2 = 0.00
Activity Avoidance_subscale 17 ± 4.71 13.33 ± 3.69 3.66 (1.48 to 5.85) t = 3.35; p = 0.001; d = 0.86 F = 0.03; p < 0.867; ηp2 = 0.00
Tab le 2. Comparative analysis between the CM group and the asymptomatic group. Values are presented as
mean ± standard deviation. CI coecient interval, CM Chronic Migraine, ROM Range of motion, TSK Tamp a
Scale of Kinesiophobia.
Measures CM group
(n = 30)
Asymptomatic
group
(n = 30) p-value t-test (independent samples) or chi-square test
Age (years) 46.8 ± 12.5 43 ± 14.4 p = 0.281
BMI (kg/m2)25.9 ± 4.7 23.8 ± 1.6 p = 0.028
Gender
Women 19 (63) 22 (73) p = 0.405
Men 11 (34) 8 (24)
Marital status
Married 12 (40) 18 (60) p = 0.052
Single 7 (23) 10 (34)
Divorced 5 (17) 1 (3)
Widow 1 (3) 1 (3)
No answer 5 (17) 0
Educational level
Primary education 3 (10) 2 (7) p = 0.299
Secondary education 14 (47) 9 (38)
College education 13 (43) 19 (63)
Employment status
Unemployed 7 (23) 2 (6) p = 0.057
Sick leave 7 (23) 2 (6)
Active 13 (44) 17 (57)
Student 2 (7) 5 (17)
No answer 1 (3) 4 (13)
IPAQ (Mets) 1554.4 ± 2472.4 3848.4 ± 4183.6 p = 0.001
Tab le 1. Descriptive statistics for sociodemographic data. Values are presented as mean ± SD or number (%);
CM chronic migraine, BMI Body Mass Index, IPAQ physical activity questionnaire.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 6
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
e physical variables with the highest correlations with disability were the cervical exor endurance test
(r = 0.31; p = 0.016) and handgrip strength (r = 0.32; p = 0.012), and the correlations were negative in magnitude
(Table 3).
Regression analysis
Table 4 presents the linear regression model for the disability criterion variable (HIT-6). e model found that
headache frequency, avoidance behaviors (PBQ/Avoidance behaviors subscale), and rest (PBQ/Rest subscale)
were associated with headache-related disability, together explaining 41% of the variance. Six variables were
excluded from the model (pain intensity, fear of movement, harm subscale, verbal complaint subscale, cervical
endurance and handgrip strength) due to their lack of signicant correlation with the disability outcome or
minimal contribution to explaining the variance. e results of the variance ination factor indicates that there
is very little multicollinearity in the model.
Discussion
is study aimed to compare cervical and overall physical variables in patients with CM and asymptomatic
participants. Findings revealed that CM patients exhibited lower strength, endurance, and range of motion in
all assessed regions. To our knowledge, this is the rst study to evaluate these physical variables in the cervical
region and in other regions. is represents a novel exploration, as previous research mainly focused on cervical
neurophysiological mechanisms in migraine1114. Our results introduce alternative hypotheses regarding the
observed physical decits in migraine patients.
e reduced physical tness variables may be linked to the lower physical activity levels observed in these
patients, aligning with our initial hypothesis. Existing studies consistently show that migraine patients exhibit
lower physical activity levels compared to asymptomatic participants16,4953. Although the relationship between
physical activity levels and decits in tness-related variables seems relatively clear, the results are not at all
Fig. 2. Dierences in endurance tests. e graphs represent the comparison of the endurance tests between the
two groups.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 7
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
clear when this relationship is established with respect to variables related to migraine worsening. Bond et al.
found that patients with migraine had lower physical activity levels, but this has not been related, for example,
to migraine frequency53, with recent ndings contradicting those results16. Importantly, physical activity or
physical exercise was not found to cause migraine exacerbations53, as recently suggested in other studies54.
Bond et al. reported that the analyzed migraine population had a higher body mass index than the
asymptomatic participants53, a nding consistent with our results. A number of consistent results from the
scientic literature suggest that obesity might be related to the prevalence, frequency and disability of migraine
in both pediatric and adult populations55.
Variable criteria: headache-related disability
Overall model
R2 = 0.44; Adjusted R2 = 0.41; F = 14.695; p < 0.001
Regression coecient (B) Standardized co ecient (β) p-value VIF
Predictor variables
Headache frequency 0.7 0.38 0.001 1.12
Pain behaviour_Avoidance behaviors subscale 0.9 0.29 0.012 1.26
Pain behaviour _Rest_subscale 1 0.24 0.029 1.15
Excluded variables
Pain intensity 0.25 0.256 1.30
Harm subscale (TSK-11) 0.09 0.612 1.19
Pain behaviour_verbal complaint_subscale 0.05 0.654 1.29
C_Endurance 0.05 0.574 1.25
Handgrip strength 0.17 0.093 1.11
Tab le 4. Regression model for headache-related disability in chronic migraine group (n = 65). VIF Variance
Ination Factor, TSK Tampa scale of kinesiophobia, C. Endurance Cervical Endurance.
N = 60
Headache-
related disability
56.4 ± 7
Measures Mean ± SD rp-value
Headache frequency 20.2 ± 3.6 0.51** < 0.001
Pain intensity 5.5 ± 1.4 0.41** 0.001
Harm_subscale 10.6 ± 3.6 0.31* 0.016
Activity Avoidance_subscale 17.2 ± 5 0.29 0.026
Pain behaviour_avoidance behaviors subscale 4.1 ± 2.3 0.50** < 0.001
Pain behaviour_Rest subscale 3.8 ± 1.6 0.40** 0.001
Pain behaviour_passive non-verbal complaint subscale 2.6 ± 1.4 0.01 0.927
Pain behaviour_active non-verbal complaint subscale 3.1 ± 1.8 0.07 0.586
Pain behaviour_medication subscale 1.5 ± 0.9 0.23 0.070
Pain behaviour_verbal complaint_subscale 2.3 ± 1.5 0.31* 0.014
CROM_FE 97.8 ± 13.9 0.19 0.132
CROM_ROT 111.8 ± 20.8 0.16 0.217
CROM_LF 70.1 ± 17.8 0.11 0.410
LROM_F 37.3 ± 7.5 0.23 0.067
C_Endurance 21.4 ± 7.3 0.31* 0.016
L_Endurance 60.3 ± 26.7 0.16 0.195
CE_Strength 20.5 ± 5.9 0.23 0.070
CF_Strength 12.5 ± 4.1 0.17 0.173
Handgrip strength 33.9 ± 7.1 0.32* 0.012
LE_strength 44.4 ± 14.5 0.28 0.030
IPAQ 1634.8 ± 1278.2 0.15 0.238
Tab le 3. Pearson correlation coecients in CM group. Values are presented as mean ± SD; CROM_FE Cervical
Range of motion_exoextension, CROM_ROT Cervical range of motion rotation, CROM_LF Cervical range
of motion lateral exion, LROM_F Lumbar range of motion exion, C_Endurance Cervical Endurance, L_
Endurance Lumbar Endurance, CE cervical extension, CF cervical exion, LE lumbar extension, IPAQ physical
activity questionnaire.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 8
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
In our study, the BMI in the migraine group (25.9) was slightly elevated but did not reach the threshold for
obesity. While previous studies have linked migraine with obesity, our sample’s BMI does not fully represent
this association, as the asymptomatic group had a BMI of around 23. is discrepancy could be related to the
reduced levels of physical activity observed in the CM patients, rather than obesity itself. Lower levels of physical
activity, which were signicantly dierent between groups, might contribute to the overall burden of migraine,
inuencing headache frequency and severity, as suggested in the literature. us, it is plausible that reduced
physical activity, rather than higher BMI, could be a more critical factor in migraine pathology.
Several literature reviews agree on the preventive eect of exercise on CM and EM5658, and it has been
observed that women with headaches who are more physically active have a lower consumption of analgesics59.
Meta-analyses have reported that aerobic exercise can decrease the frequency, duration and intensity of migraine
attacks and improve the quality of life of these patients6062, a clinical trial with similar results using general
strength training has recently been published63. However, another trial found no eect of specic strength
training on the cervical region64.
e neurophysiological relationship between the upper cervical region and the trigeminal nerve has been
extensively documented, with an observed increase in the mechanosensitivity of the cervical region aer dural
stimulation65. e explanation for this phenomenon might be the convergence of both cervical and trigeminal
innervation in the trigeminocervical nucleus in the brainstem65. is relationship could perhaps explain the
high prevalence of neck pain in patients with migraine8. According to this assumption, some researchers have
hypothesized that manual therapy and specic exercise interventions directed to the cervical region could
improve both neck pain and migraine conditions. However, scarce evidence exists regarding the eectiveness of
manual therapy in the cervical region for migraine treatment that supports its application62,6668. Regarding the
eectiveness of specic exercise interventions directed to the cervical region, they seem not to be superior to
sham ultrasound nor aerobic exercise for the treatment of migraine64; moreover, at 3months, aerobic exercise
showed a greater reduction in migraine frequency compared to cervical exercises69. In contrast, aerobic exercise
and full-body resistance training have shown signicant results for reducing migraine symptoms and improving
quality of life, as previously mentioned61,63. e presence of central sensitization in thalamocortical and cortical
levels in patients with migraine represents evidence of dysfunctional central pain mechanisms that could aect
pain sensitivity throughout the body70. Cutaneous allodynia and temporal summation in extracephalic regions
have also been associated with a worse outcome and a higher migraine frequency71,72. It is hypothesized that
exercise could produce a generalized decrease in pain due to exercise-induced analgesia, a phenomenon that
seems to involucrate mainly opioid and endocannabinoid systems73. Aerobic exercise and full-body resistance
exercise have also been shown to decrease pain sensitivity in other chronic pain populations, such as bromyalgia
and chronic low back pain7477. ese results demonstrate that it is not necessary to directly apply an exercise
intervention to a specic region to obtain an improvement in pain.
For this reason, it is possible that the cervical region is not a specic therapeutic target for patients with
migraine. A more general physical assessment such as the one performed in our study should therefore be
conducted to identify possible decits in variables related to range of motion and strength/endurance to better
determine the ideal exercise prescription for these patients.
It is important to note that our study did not specically record the presence of low back pain (LBP) in migraine
patients. However, what we did observe and record was that patients with chronic migraine (CM) exhibited
signicantly lower lumbar muscle endurance compared to asymptomatic participants. is nding raises the
possibility that undiagnosed or unreported LBP could have contributed to the reduced lumbar endurance seen
in the CM group. Previous studies, such as those by Yoon et al. (2013), have demonstrated a strong association
between chronic headaches, including CM, and frequent LBP, suggesting that the neurobiology of chronic
headache may involve generalized pain processing dysfunction that extends beyond the trigeminal system78.
is broader pain sensitization could potentially explain the lumbar decits observed in our study.
Additionally, a recent study by Deodato et al. (2024) identied musculoskeletal dysfunctions throughout
the spine in patients with chronic primary headaches, including CM and chronic tension-type headache, with
no signicant dierences in postural alterations or musculoskeletal dysfunctions between these two headache
types79. is nding further supports the hypothesis that musculoskeletal dysfunctions, including in the lumbar
region, could be related to central sensitization in chronic migraine patients.
Given the evidence linking chronic headache with LBP, future studies should consider incorporating a
direct assessment of LBP in CM patients to explore its potential role in the observed physical impairments,
particularly in the lumbar region. e high prevalence of LBP in individuals with chronic headaches underscores
the importance of a more comprehensive evaluation of musculoskeletal function in this population.
Findings related to headache-related disability show that the predictors are headache frequency, and activity
avoidance and rest of the PBQ. Other studies have independently found relationships between disability and
variables such as headache frequency, activity avoidance80,81 and social avoidance81. In relation to these three
variables, it has been observed that patients with migraine who avoid physical activity were more likely to
experience CM and more frequent headaches82.
Aer the present results, authors’ recommendations for future research would be to assess the eects of a
combined intervention including aerobic and full body strength exercises. In addition, the assessment of the
physical condition of the migraine patients in a general approach would be needed over a segmental cervical
assessment.
Limitations
is study has limitations to consider. Physical activity data relied on self-reports, which are subjective and
prone to recall bias and inaccuracies. Future research should employ objective instruments like accelerometers
to capture precise physical activity data. Additionally, measuring cardiorespiratory tness could oer a more
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 9
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
comprehensive understanding of patients’ physical tness. e cross-sectional design limits predictive insights.
Comorbidities were not assessed, and comparisons with patients having episodic migraines (EM) could be
benecial in future studies, enhancing our understanding of physical variables’ behavior in CM versus EM
patients.
Conclusions
is study revealed that patients with CM exhibit reduced overall range of motion, lower endurance and strength
in cervical and non-cervical areas, and lower physical activity levels compared to asymptomatic participants.
Headache-related disability was primarily associated with headache frequency, activity avoidance behaviors,
and rest.
Data availability
e datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reason-
able request.
Received: 28 March 2024; Accepted: 29 November 2024
References
1. Amiri, P. et al. Migraine: a review on its history, global epidemiology, risk factors, and comorbidities. Front. Neurol. 12, 800605.
https://doi.org/10.3389/FNEUR.2021.800605 (2021).
2. Mathew, N. T., Stubits, E. & Nigam, M. P. Transformation of episodic migraine into daily headache: analysis of factors. Headache
22, 66–68. https://doi. org/10.1111/ J.1526-4610. 1982.HED220 2066.X (1982).
3. Vos, T. et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases
and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386, 743–800.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4 (2015).
4. Natoli, J. L. et al. Global prevalence of chronic migraine: a systematic review. Cephalalgia 30, 599–609. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / J . 1
4 6 8 - 2 9 8 2 . 2 0 0 9 . 0 1 9 4 1 . X (2010).
5. Buse, D. et al. Chronic migraine prevalence, disability, and sociodemographic factors: results from the American migraine
prevalence and prevention study. Headache 52, 1456–1470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2012.02223.x (2012).
6. Lipton, R. B. et al. Ineective acute treatment of episodic migraine is associated with new-onset chronic migraine. Neurology 84,
688–695. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001256 (2015).
7. Karsan, N. & Goadsby, P. J. Biological insights from the premonitory symptoms of migraine. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 14, 699–710. h t t p s :
/ / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / S 4 1 5 8 2 - 0 1 8 - 0 0 9 8 - 4 (2018).
8. Al-Khazali, H. M. et al. Prevalence of neck pain in migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cephalalgia 033310242110680.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211068073 (2022).
9. Calhoun, A. H. et al. e prevalence of neck pain in migraine. Headache: J. Head Face Pain 50, 1273–1277. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1
1 / J . 1 5 2 6 - 4 6 1 0 . 2 0 0 9 . 0 1 6 0 8 . X (2010).
10. Aoyama, N. Involvement of cervical disability in migraine: a literature review. Br. J. Pain 15, 199–212. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 2 0 4
9 4 6 3 7 2 0 9 2 4 7 0 4 (2021).
11. Bevilaqua-Grossi, D. et al. Cervical mobility in women with migraine. Headache 49, 726–731. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 5 2 6 - 4 6 1 0
. 2 0 0 8 . 0 1 2 3 3 . x (2009).
12. Pinheiro, C. F. et al. Neck active movements assessment in women with episodic and chronic migraine. J. Clin. Med. 10. h t t p s : / / d
o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / J C M 1 0 1 7 3 8 0 5 (2021).
13. Florencio, L. et al. Muscle endurance and cervical electromyographic activity during submaximal eorts in women with and
without migraine. Clin. Biomech. Elsevier Ltd. 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105276 (2021).
14. Florencio, L. et al. Cervical muscle strength and muscle coactivation during isometric contractions in patients with migraine: a
cross-sectional study. Headache 55, 1312–1322. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.12644 (2015).
15. Florencio, L. et al. Comparison of cervical muscle isometric force between migraine subgroups or migraine-associated neck pain:
a controlled study. Sci. Rep. 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-021-95078-4 (2021).
16. de Oliveira, A. B. et al. Physical inactivity and headache disorders: cross-sectional analysis in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of
Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). Cephalalgia 41, 1467–1485. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211029217 (2021).
17. Nyberg, J. et al. Cardiovascular tness and risk of migraine: a large, prospective population-based study of Swedish young adult
men. BMJ Open 9. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-029147 (2019).
18. Farris, S. G. et al. Anxiety sensitivity and intentional avoidance of physical activity in women with probable migraine. Cephalalgia
39, 1465–1469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102419861712 (2019).
19. Benatto, M. T. et al. Kinesiophobia is associated with migraine. Pain Med. 20, 846–851. https://doi.org/10.1093/PM/PNY206
(2019).
20. von Elm, E. et al. e Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for
reporting observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 (2008).
21. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving
human subjects. JAMA 310, 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.2013.281053 (2013).
22. ICHD-3. Headache Classication Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) e International Classication of
Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 38, 1–211 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102417738202
23. Martin, M., Blaisdell, B., Kwong, J. W. & Bjorner, J. B. e short-form headache impact test (HIT-6) was psychometrically
equivalent in nine languages. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 57, 1271–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2004.05.004 (2004).
24. Roman-Viñas, B. et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: reliability and validity in a Spanish population. Eur. J. Sport
Sci. 10, 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390903426667 (2010).
25. Gómez-Pérez, L., López-Martínez, A. E. & Ruiz-Párraga, G. T. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Tampa Scale
for Kinesiophobia (TSK). J. Pain 12, 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2010.08.004 (2011).
26. García Campayo, J. et al. Validación de la versión española de la escala de la catastrozación ante El Dolor (Pain Catastrophizing
Scale) en la bromialgia. Med. Clin. (Barc) 131, 487–492. https://doi.org/10.1157/13127277 (2008).
27. Martín-Aragón, M. et al. Percepción De autoecacia en dolor crónico. adaptación y validación de la Chronic Pain Selfecacy Scale
1151–1176 (Revista de PSICOLOGÍA DE, 1999). https://doi.org/10.21134/PSSA.V11I1.799
28. Rodrígue z Franco, L., Cano García, F. J. & Blanco Picabia, I. Conductas De dolor y discapacidad en migrañas y cefaleas tensionales.
Adaptación española Del Pain Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ) Y Del Headache disability inventory (HDI). Análisis Y modicación
de conducta 26, 739–762 (2000).
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 10
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
29. Audette, I., Dumas, J. P., Côté, J. N. & De Serres, S. J. Validity and between-day reliability of the cervical range of motion (CROM)
device. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. er. 40, 318–323 (2010).
30. Williams, M. A., McCarthy, C. J., Chorti, A., Cooke, M. W. & Gates, S. A systematic review of reliability and validity studies of
methods for measuring active andPassive cervical range of motion. J. Manipulative Physiol. er. 33, 138–155. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1
0 1 6 / j . j m p t . 2 0 0 9 . 1 2 . 0 0 9 (2010).
31. Kolber, M. J. et al. e reliability and concurrent validity of measurements used to quantify lumbar spine mobility: an analysis of
an iphone® application and gravity based inclinometry. Int. J. Sports Phys. er. 8, 129–137. h t t p s : / / w w w . n c b i . n l m . n i h . g o v / p m c / a r
t i c l e s / p m i d / 2 3 5 9 3 5 5 1 / ? t o o l = EBI (2013).
32. Edmondston, S. J. et al. Reliability of isometric muscle endurance tests in subjects with postural neck pain. J. Manipulative Physiol.
er. 31, 348–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMPT.2008.04.010 (2008).
33. Müller, R., Strässle, K. & Wirth, B. Isometric back muscle endurance: an EMG study on the criterion validity of the Ito test. J.
Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 20, 845–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JELEKIN.2010.04.004 (2010).
34. Vannebo, K. T., Iversen, V. M., Fimland, M. S. & Mork, P. J. Test-retest reliability of a handheld dynamometer for measurement of
isometric cervical muscle strength. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 31, 557–565. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-170829 (2018).
35. Coldwells, A., Atkinson, G. & Reilly, T. Sources of variation in back and leg dynamometry. Ergonomics 37, 79–86. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g /
1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 0 1 4 0 1 3 9 4 0 8 9 6 3 6 2 5 (1994).
36. Roberts, H. C. et al. A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised
approach. Age Ageing 40, 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/AGEING/AFR051 (2011).
37. Karagiannis, C. et al. Test–retest reliability of handgrip strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. COPD: J.
Chronic Obstr. Pulmon. Dis. 17, 568–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2020.1808604 (2020).
38. Savva, C., Giakas, G., Efstathiou, M. & Karagiannis, C. Test-retest reliability of handgrip strength measurement using a hydraulic
hand dynamometer in patients with cervical radiculopathy. J. Manipulative Physiol. er. 37, 206–210. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / J . J
M P T . 2 0 1 4 . 0 2 . 0 0 1 (2014).
39. Bohannon, R. W. Test-retest reliability of measurements of hand-grip strength obtained by dynamometry from older adults: a
systematic review of research in the PubMed database. J. Frailty Aging 6, 83–87. https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2017.8 (2017).
40. Rendas-Baum, R. et al. Validation of the headache impact test (HIT-6) in patients with chronic migraine. Health Qual. Life
Outcomes 12, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12955-014-0117-0/TABLES/8 (2014).
41. Philips, C. & Hunter, M. Pain behavior in headache suerers. Behav. Anal. Modif. 4, 257–266. h t t p s : / / k c l p u r e . k c l . a c . u k / p o r t a l / e n /
p u b l i c a t i o n s / p a i n - b e h a v i o r - i n - h e a d a c h e - s u  e r e r s (1981).
42. Appelbaum, K. A., Radnitz, C. L., Blanchard, E. B. & Prins, A. e Pain Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ): a global report of pain
behavior in chronic headache. Headache: J. Head Face Pain 28, 53–58. https://doi. org/10.1111/ J.1365-2524. 1988.HED280 1053.X
(1988).
43. Angarita-Fonseca, A., Camargo-Lemos, D. M. & Oróstegui-Arenas, M. Reproducibilidad del tiempo en posición sedente evaluado
con el International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) y el Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). MedUNAB 13,
5–26. https://revi stas.unab.ed u.co/index.p hp/medunab/ article/view/439 (2010).
44. Sendlbeck, M., Araujo, E. G., Schett, G. & Englbrecht, M. Psychometric properties of three single-item pain scales in patients with
rheumatoid arthritis seen during routine clinical care: a comparative perspective on construct validity, reproducibility and internal
responsiveness. RMD Open 1. https://doi.org/10.1136/RMDOPEN-2015-000140 (2015).
45. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G. & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: a exible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 (2007).
46. Erdfelder, E., FAul, F., Buchner, A. & Lang, A. G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression
analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149/METRICS (2009).
47. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second (LEA, 1988).
48. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S. G. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. http://jebs.aera.net (1988).
49. Rogers, D. G., Bond, D. S., Bentley, J. P. & Smitherman, T. A. Objectively measured physical activity in migraine as a function of
headache activity. Headache 60, 1930–1938. https://doi.org/10.1111/HEAD.13921 (2020).
50. Varkey, E., Hagen, K., Zwart, J. A. & Linde, M. Physical activity and headache: results from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study
(HUNT). Cephalalgia 28, 1292–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-2982.2008.01678.X (2008).
51. Stronks, D. L., Tulen, J. H. M., Bussmann, J. B. J., Mulder, L. J. M. M. & Passchier, J. Interictal daily functioning in migraine.
Cephalalgia 24, 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-2982.2004.00661.X (2004).
52. Krøll, L. S. et al. Level of physical activity, well-being, stress and self-rated health in persons with migraine and co-existing tension-
type headache and neck pain. J. Headache Pain 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/S10194-017-0753-Y (2017).
53. Bond, D. S. et al. Objectively measured physical activity in obese women with and without migraine. Cephalalgia 35, 886–893.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102414562970 (2015).
54. Hagan, K. K. et al. Prospective cohort study of routine exercise and headache outcomes among adults with episodic migraine.
Headache 61, 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/HEAD.14037 (2021).
55. Verrotti, A., Di Fonzo, A., Penta, L., Agostinelli, S. & Parisi, P. Obesity and headache/migraine: the importance of Weight reduction
through lifestyle modications. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/420858 (2014).
56. Barber, M. & Pace, A. Exercise and migraine prevention: a review of the literature. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 24. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1
0 . 1 0 0 7 / S 1 1 9 1 6 - 0 2 0 - 0 0 8 6 8 - 6 (2020).
57. Song, T. J. & Chu, M. K. Exercise in treatment of migraine including chronic migraine. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 25. h t t p s : / / d o i . o
r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / S 1 1 9 1 6 - 0 2 0 - 0 0 9 2 9 - W (2021).
58. Amin, F. M. et al. e association between migraine and physical exercise. J. Headache Pain 19, 83. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / S 1 0 1 9
4 - 0 1 8 - 0 9 0 2 - Y (2018).
59. Müller, B. et al. Physical activity is associated with less analgesic use in women reporting headache—a cross-sectional study of the
German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG). Pain er. 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40122-022-00362-4 (2022).
60. Lemmens, J. et al. e eect of aerobic exercise on the number of migraine days, duration and pain intensity in migraine: a
systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J. Headache Pain 20, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-019-0961-8 (2019).
61. La Touche, R. et al. Is aerobic exercise helpful in patients with migraine? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand. J. Med. Sci.
Sports 30, 965–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13625 (2020).
62. Herranz-Gómez, A., García-Pascual, I., Montero-Iniesta, P., Touche, R. & La, Paris-Alemany, A. Eectiveness of exercise and
manual therapy as treatment for patients with migraine, tension-type headache or cervicogenic headache: an umbrella and
mapping review with meta-meta-analysis. Appl. Sci. 11, 6856. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156856 (2021).
63. Sari Aslani, P., Hassanpour, M., Razi, O., Knechtle, B. & Parnow, A. Resistance training reduces pain indices and improves quality
of life and body strength in women with migraine disorders. Sport Sci. Health 2021 18, 2. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / S 1 1 3 3 2 - 0 2 1 - 0 0 8
2 2 - Y (2021).
64. Benatto, M. T. et al. Neck-specic strengthening exercise compared with placebo sham ultrasound in patients with migraine: a
randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol. 22, 126. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12883-022-02650-0 (2022).
65. Bartsch, T. & Goadsby, P. J. Increased responses in trigeminocervical nociceptive neurons to cervical input aer stimulation of the
dura mater. Brain 126, 1801–1813. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awg190 (2003).
66. Luedtke, K. et al. Neck treatment compared to aerobic exercise in migraine: a preference-based clinical trial. Cephalalgia Rep. 3,
251581632093068. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515816320930681 (2020).
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 11
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
67. Jafari, M., Bahrpeyma, F., Togha, M., Vahabizad, F. & Hall, T. Eects of upper cervical spine manual therapy on central sensitization
and disability in subjects with migraine and neck pain. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 13, 177–185. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 2 0 9 8 / M L T J .
0 1 . 2 0 2 3 . 2 1 (2023).
68. Muñoz-Gómez, E., Inglés, M., Serra-Añó, P. & Espí-López, G. V. Eectiveness of a manual therapy protocol based on articulatory
techniques in migraine patients. A randomized controlled trial. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 54, 102386. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / J . M S
K S P . 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 2 3 8 6 (2021).
69. Is, E. E., Coskun, O., Likos Akpinar, R. & Is, S. e eectiveness of aerobic exercise and neck exercises in pediatric migraine
treatment: a randomized controlled single-blind study. Ir. J. Med. Sci., 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1007/ S11845-024-0 3660-2/TABL
ES/6 (2024).
70. Sebastianelli, G. et al. Central sensitization mechanisms in chronic migraine with medication overuse headache: a study of
thalamocortical activation and lateral cortical inhibition. Cephalalgia 43. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 0 3 3 3 1 0 2 4 2 3 1 2 0 2 2 4 0 / A S S E T / I M
A G E S / L A R G E / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 _ 0 3 3 3 1 0 2 4 2 3 1 2 0 2 2 4 0 - F I G 4 . J P E G (2023).
71. Pijpers, J. A., Kies, D. A., van Zwet, E. W., de Boer, I. & Terwindt, G. M. Cutaneous allodynia as predictor for treatment response
in chronic migraine: a cohort study. J. Headache Pain 24, 1–11. https: //d oi. or g/10 .1186/ S10 194-0 2 3-0165 1-9/TABLES/3 (2023).
72. De Icco, R. et al. Experimentally induced spinal nociceptive sensitization increases with migraine frequency: a single-blind
controlled study. Pain 161, 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1097/J.PAIN.0000000000001726 (2020).
73. Lesnak, J. B. & Sluka, K. A. Mechanism of exercise-induced analgesia: what we can learn from physically active animals. Pain Rep.
5, E850. https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000850 (2020).
74. Hernando-Garijo, I., Medrano-De-la-fuente R.et al. Immediate eects of a telerehabilitation program based on aerobic exercise in
women with bromyalgia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH18042075 (2021).
75. Larsson, A. et al. Resistance exercise improves muscle strength, health status and pain intensity in bromyalgia—a randomized
controlled trial. Arthritis Res. er. 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13075-015-0679-1 (2015).
76. Suh, J. H., Kim, H., Jung, G. P., Ko, J. Y. & Ryu, J. S. e eect of lumbar stabilization and walking exercises on chronic low back
pain: a randomized controlled trial. Medicine 98, e16173. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016173 (2019).
77. Cortell-Tormo, J. M. et al. Eects of functional resistance training on tness and quality of life in females with chronic nonspecic
low-back pain. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 31, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-169684 (2018).
78. Yoon, M. S. et al. Chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache are associated with concomitant low back pain: results of
the German Headache Consortium study. Pain 154, 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAIN.2012.12.010 (2013).
79. Deodato, M., Granato, A., Del Frate, J., Martini, M. & Manganotti, P. Dierences in musculoskeletal dysfunctions and in postural
alterations between chronic migraine and chronic tension type headache: a cross-sectional study. J. Bodyw. Mov. er. 37, 404–411.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBMT.2023.11.011 (2024).
80. Pradeep, R. et al. Quality of life, and its predictors. Ann. Neurosci. 27, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972753120929563 (2020).
81. Klonowski, T., Kropp, P., Straube, A. & Ruscheweyh, R. Psychological factors associated with headache frequency, intensity, and
headache-related disability in migraine patients. Neurol. Sci. 43, 1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10072-021-05453-2 (2022).
82. Farris, S. G. et al. Intentional avoidance of physical activity in women with migraine. Cephalalgia Rep. 1, 251581631878828. h t t p s :
/ / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 2 5 1 5 8 1 6 3 1 8 7 8 8 2 8 4 (2018).
Author contributions
Author RL contributed to the conception and design of the manuscript. Author RL, author MGA, author ARV,
and author APA have given substantial contributions to acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data. All
authors have participated to draing the manuscript, author TGP revised it critically. All authors read and ap-
proved the nal version of the manuscript.
Funding
e Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle provided funding and support for this study.
Declarations
Competing interests
e authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to A.P.-A.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional aliations.
Open Access is article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in
any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide
a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modied the licensed material. You do not have
permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. e images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence
and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit h t t p : / / c r e a t i v e c o m m o
n s . o r g / l i c e n s e s / b y - n c - n d / 4 . 0 / .
© e Author(s) 2024
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:30916 12
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81841-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Background It is unclear whether cortical hyperexcitability in chronic migraine with medication overuse headache (CM-MOH) is due to increased thalamocortical drive or aberrant cortical inhibitory mechanisms. Methods Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) were performed by electrical stimulation of the median nerve (M), ulnar nerve (U) and simultaneous stimulation of both nerves (MU) in 27 patients with CM-MOH and, for comparison, in 23 healthy volunteers (HVs) of a comparable age distribution. We calculated the degree of cortical lateral inhibition using the formula: 100 – [MU/(M + U) × 100] and the level of thalamocortical activation by analyzing the high frequency oscillations (HFOs) embedded in parietal N20 median SSEPs. Results Compared to HV, CM-MOH patients showed higher lateral inhibition (CM-MOH 52.2% ± 15.4 vs. HV 40.4% ± 13.3; p = 0.005), which positively correlated with monthly headache days, and greater amplitude of pre-synaptic HFOs ( p = 0.010) but normal post-synaptic HFOs ( p = 0.122). Conclusion Our findings suggest that central neuronal circuits are highly sensitized in CM-MOH patients, at both thalamocortical and cortical levels. The observed changes could be due to the combination of dysfunctional central pain control mechanisms, hypersensitivity and hyperresponsiveness directly linked to the chronic intake of acute migraine drugs.
Article
Full-text available
Background Central sensitisation is an important mechanism in migraine chronification. It is presumed to occur in second and third order neurons sequentially, resulting in an analogous spatial distribution of cutaneous allodynia with cephalic and extracephalic symptoms. We investigated whether allodynia, and its subtypes based on spatial distribution and type of stimulus, predict response to treatment in chronic migraine patients. Methods This study was conducted as part of the CHARM study (NTR3440), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in chronic migraine patients with medication overuse. We included 173 patients. The presence of cutaneous allodynia at baseline was established with the Allodynia Symptom Checklist. Primary endpoint was reversion from chronic to episodic migraine. Results Of all patients, 74.6% reported cutaneous allodynia. Absence of allodynia compared to presence of allodynia was predictive for reversion from chronic to episodic migraine, odds ratio (OR): 2.45 (95% CI: 1.03–5.84), p = 0.042. The predictive value was more pronounced when subdivided for spatial distribution, for participants without allodynia versus cephalic (OR: 4.16 (95% CI: 1.21–14.30), p = 0.024) and extracephalic (OR: 7.32 (95% CI: 1.98- 27.11), p = 0.003) allodynia. Mechanical, but not thermal, allodynia, was associated with outcome. Conclusions Cutaneous allodynia, an important marker for central sensitization, likely has predictive value for treatment response in chronic migraine. Graphical Abstract
Article
Full-text available
Background Migraine patients have musculoskeletal disorders and pain in the cervical. And, despite the pathophysiology demonstrating the relationship between migraine and the cervical spine, the effectiveness of craniocervical exercises in these patients has not been verified. So, the aimed of this study was verify the effectiveness of craniocervical muscle-strengthening exercise (CMSE) in reducing the frequency and intensity of headache in migraine patients. Methods A two-armed, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up was performed. For eight weeks, the volunteers in the intervention group ( n = 21) performed a protocol of CMSE, while those in the sham ultrasound group ( n = 21) received the application of disconnected therapeutic ultrasound in the upper trapezius and guideline for home-stretching. The primary outcomes were the frequency and intensity of the headache. The secondary outcomes were questionnaires about migraine and neck disability, and satisfaction with the treatment, cervical range of motion, the pressure pain threshold, craniocervical flexion test (CCFT), cervical muscle strength and endurance test, and the cervical muscle activity during the physical tests. Results No differences were observed for the changes observed in primary outcomes after eight weeks and at the 3-months follow up ( p > 0.05). For the secondary outcomes, craniocervical exercises improved the sensitivity of the frontal muscle ( p = 0.040) and promoted a reduced amplitude of muscle activity of the anterior scalene and upper trapezius in the last stages of CCFT ( p ≤ 0.010). There was also reduced muscle activity of the anterior scalene and splenius capitis in the endurance test ( p ≤ 0.045), as evaluated by surface electromyography. Conclusion CMSE were insufficient in reducing the frequency and intensity of headache, improving the performance of the cervical muscles, or reducing migraine and neck pain-related disabilities. This was found despite a decreased electromyographic activity of the cervical muscles during the last stages of CCFT and increased median frequency during the endurance test. Trial registration Accession code RBR-8gfv5j , registered 28/11/2016 in the Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC).
Article
Full-text available
Migraine affects more than one billion individuals each year across the world, and is one of the most common neurologic disorders, with a high prevalence and morbidity, especially among young adults and females. Migraine is associated with a wide range of comorbidities, which range from stress and sleep disturbances to suicide. The complex and largely unclear mechanisms of migraine development have resulted in the proposal of various social and biological risk factors, such as hormonal imbalances, genetic and epigenetic influences, as well as cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune diseases. This review presents a comprehensive review of the most up-to-date literature on the epidemiology, and risk factors, as well as highlighting the gaps in our knowledge.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: The aim of this analysis is to determine whether regular physical activity is associated with less analgesic use in men and women suffering from headache disorders based on population-based cross-sectional data. Methods: We used data from a random general population sample in Germany that comprised 2477 participants aged ≥ 14 years. A standardized questionnaire addressing headache and headache treatment was filled in during the face-to-face survey. Results: Thirty-nine percent of the participants reported headache. Of these, 37.5% of men and 33.6% of women were physically active. Of the participants with headache, 43.3% reported taking analgesics on < 2 days a month, 40.7% on 2-5 days a month, 10.1% on 6-10 days a month, and 5.9% on > 10 days a month. Frequent headache, severe impact of headache on daily life, and depressive symptoms were associated with higher analgesic use in both men and women. For women, physical inactivity was associated with the frequency of analgesic use adjusted for sociodemographic and headache-related variables. For men, results did not suggest any association between physical inactivity and frequency of analgesic use. Conclusions: There are both sex-unspecific and sex-specific factors associated with analgesic use among men and women with headache. In women with increased analgesic use, promoting physical activity may reduce analgesic use. For men, education about the therapeutic effects of physical activity for headaches is an important resource.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose The benefits of resistance training (RT) for migraineurs appears to be lacking although beneficial of aerobic training have been shown in previous studies. The aim of the current study, therefore, is to investigate the influence of RT on migraine headache indices, upper and lower-body strength, and quality of life (QOL) in women with migraine disorders. Methods Twenty female migraine patients who were referred by a neurologist were randomly assigned to two groups including RT group (n = 10) and control (CON) group (n = 10). The RT protocol consisted of 8 weeks, 3 sessions per week, 45–60 min per session. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and pain diary were utilized to measure the subjects’ migraine indices including duration, pain severity, and frequency within 48 h pre- and post-training protocol. Patients in the Control group (CON) have been refrained from regular exercise during this study. The quality of life (QOL) and muscular strength were measured by the Headache Impact Tests (HIT) and one-repetition maximum (1RM) test, respectively, for 48 h pre- and post-training protocol. Results The RT resulted in a significant decrease in the migraine indices (headache intensity, frequency, and duration) (p = 0.02, p = 0.001, p = 0.04, respectivetly). Increased quality of life and chest and leg muscular strength significantly (p = 0.001 for all) were also showed after 8-week RT protocol. However, there were not any significant differences between groups considering, BMI and waist-hip ratio (WHR) after executing RT protocol (p > 0.05). Conclusion Based on the results of the current study that mainly had a positive trend, it could state that RT protocol with special consideration for migraine patients is probably an alternative therapy or augmentative complement to established interventions for migraine treatment.
Article
Full-text available
We aimed to compare movement parameters and muscle activity during active cervical spine movements between women with episodic or chronic migraine and asymptomatic control. We also assessed the correlations between cervical movement measures with neck-related disability and kinesiophobia. Women with episodic (n = 27; EM) or chronic (n = 27; CM) migraine and headache-free controls (n = 27; CG) performed active cervical movements. Cervical range of motion, angular velocity, and percentage of muscular activation were calculated in a blinded fashion. Compared to CG, the EM and CM groups presented a reduced total range of motion (p < 0.05). Reduced mean angular velocity of cervical movement was also observed in both EM and CM compared to CG (p < 0.05). Total cervical range of motion and mean angular velocity showed weak correlations with disability (r = −0.25 and −0.30, respectively; p < 0.05) and weak-to-moderate correlations with kinesiophobia (r = −0.30 and −0.40, respectively; p < 0.05). No significant correlation was observed between headache features and total cervical range of motion or mean angular velocity (p > 0.05). No differences in the percentage of activation of both flexors and extensors cervical muscles during active neck movements were seen (p > 0.05). In conclusion, episodic and chronic migraines were associated with less mobility and less velocity of neck movements, without differences within muscle activity. Neck disability and kinesiophobia are negative and weakly associated with cervical movement.
Article
Background Neck pain is a frequent complaint among patients with migraine and seems to be correlated with the headache frequency. Neck pain is more common in patients with chronic migraine compared to episodic migraine. However, prevalence of neck pain in patients with migraine varies among studies. Objective To estimate the prevalence of neck pain in patients with migraine and non-headache controls in observational studies. Methods A systematic literature search on PubMed and Embase was conducted to identify studies reporting prevalence of neck pain in migraine patients. This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data was extracted by two independent investigators and results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021264898). Results The search identified 2490 citations of which 30 contained relevant original population based and clinic-based data. Among these, 24 studies provided data eligible for the analysis. The meta-analysis for clinic-based studies demonstrated that the pooled relative frequency of neck pain was 77.0% (95% CI: 69.0–86.4) in the migraine group and 23.2% (95% CI:18.6–28.5) in the non-headache control group. Neck pain was more frequent in patients with chronic migraine (87.0%, 95% CI: 77.0–93.0) compared to episodic migraine (77.0%, 95% CI: 69.0–84.0). Neck pain was 12 times more prevalent in migraine patients compared to non-headache controls and two times more prevalent in patients with chronic migraine compared to episodic migraine. The calculated heterogeneity (I ² values) ranged from 61.3% to 72.0%. Conclusion Neck pain is a frequent complaint among patients with migraine. The heterogeneity among the studies emphasize important aspects to consider in future research of neck pain in migraine to improve our understanding of the driving mechanisms of neck pain in a major group of migraine patients.