4.5 Article

Simple and efficient recognition of migraine with 3-question headache screen

Journal

HEADACHE
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 323-327

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2004.04075.x

Keywords

diagnosis; migraine; questionnaire

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective.-To correlate the results of a new 3-question headache screen to 3 established methods of diagnosing migraine: the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria, physician's clinical impression, and presence of recurring disabling headaches. Background.-A simple tool to recognize patients who experience migraine may facilitate diagnosis of this debilitating and frequently undiagnosed condition. Methods.-Primary care physicians and neurologists in the United States enrolled 3014 adults with a diagnosis of migraine based on one of the following: International Headache Society criteria, an investigator's clinical impression, or presence of recurring disabling headaches. Each patient completed a 3-question headache screen: (1) Do you have recurrent headaches that interfere with work, family, or social functions? (2) Do your headaches last at least 4 hours? (3) Have you had new or different headaches in the past 6 months? A diagnosis of migraine was suggested by a yes answer to questions 1 and 2 and a no answer to question 3. Results.-The 3-question headache screen identified migraine in 77% of the study population; including 78% of the patients enrolled based on International Headache Society criteria, 74% based on clinical impression, and 68% because of recurring disabling headaches. Conclusions.-Positive 3-question headache screen results agreed well with migraine diagnoses based on International Headache Society criteria, clinical impressions, and presence of recurring disabling headaches. These findings support use of the 3-question headache screen to recognize migraine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available