4.5 Article

Clinical significance of sensory hypersensitivities in migraine patients: does allodynia have a priority on it?

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 393-398

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-018-3661-2

关键词

Sensory hypersensitivity; Migraine; Allodynia; Quality of life; Poor outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesThis study investigated to identify the clinical significance of allodynia compared with other sensory hypersensitivities (SH) in migraine patients.MethodsNew patients with migraine were recruited from a headache clinic, and we collected data regarding their clinical characteristics and identified SH including photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, and allodynia. The patients completed the 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist, Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Version 2.1. We divided the patients into three groups: SH with allodynia (group 1), SH without allodynia (group 2), and no SH (group 3). Clinical characteristics, psychosomatic features, and quality of life (QOL) were compared among these groups.ResultsA total of 312 migraine patients participated in the study. Among them, 58 (18.6%), 202 (64.7%), and 52 (16.7%) were allocated to groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Chronic migraine, family history of migraine, medication overuse headache, earlier age at onset, longer disease duration, higher headache intensity, and aggravation with physical activity were more prevalent in group 1 than in groups 2 or 3. Scores of the MIDAS, HIT-6, PHQ-9, GAD-7, ISI, and FSS were the highest in group 1, followed by groups 2 and group 3. The lowest QOL was noted in group 1, followed by groups 2 and group 3.ConclusionsThis study revealed that SH in migraine, particularly combined with allodynia, may result in poor clinical outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据