4.4 Article

Validation of an extended French version of ID Migraine (TM) as a migraine-screening tool

Journal

CEPHALALGIA
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 437-442

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414544910

Keywords

Migraine; screening tool; validity; sensitivity; specificity

Funding

  1. INTERREG IV A program, Greater Region
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (NESCAV) [39/GR/3/3/056]
  3. Walloon Region
  4. University of Liege in Belgium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Migraine has a considerable social, economic, physical and emotional burden but remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. A specific migraine screening tool could help remove barriers to health care and be an attractive instrument for epidemiological studies. The objective of this work was to assess the validity of an extended French version of ID Migraine as a migraine-screening tool. Methods Sixty-seven subjects from the NESCaV study (2010-2012) completed the migraine screen and were diagnosed by a neurologist specializing in headache medicine using the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition criteria (gold standard). Agreement between the two diagnoses was evaluated by Cohen kappa coefficient (). Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the migraine screen were calculated. Results Migraine was diagnosed in 21 (31.3%) of the 67 subjects according to the screening tool and in 24 (35.8%) by the neurologist (=0.90). The prevalence of migraine was unrelated to age, gender, education and perception of financial resources. Sensitivity and specificity of the screen were 87.5% and 100%, respectively. The screen prevalence of migraine with aura was 10.4% (sensitivity and specificity: 83.3% and 96.7%, respectively). Conclusion The extended French version of ID Migraine (ef-ID Migraine) is a validated tool to screen migraine in French-speaking countries.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available