4.5 Review

Clinical features of visual migraine aura: a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-019-1008-x

关键词

Migraine aura; Migraine with aura; Visual symptoms; Visual disturbances; Scotoma; Clinical features; Scintillating scotoma; Zigzag lines; Blurred vision

资金

  1. European Headache Federation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Migraine aura (MA) is a common and disabling neurological condition, characterized by transient visual, and less frequently sensory and dysphasic aura disturbances. MA is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disorders and is often clinically difficult to distinguish from other serious neurological disorders such as transient ischemic attacks and epilepsy. Optimal clinical classification of MA symptoms is important for more accurate diagnosis and improved understanding of the pathophysiology of MA through clinical studies. Main body: A systematic review of previous prospective and retrospective systematic recordings of visual aura symptoms (VASs) was performed to provide an overview of the different types of visual phenomena occurring during MA and their respective frequencies in patients. We found 11 retrospective studies and three prospective studies systematically describing VASs. The number of different types of VASs reported by patients in the studies ranged from two to 23. The most common were flashes of bright light, foggy vision, zigzag lines, scotoma, small bright dots and 'like looking through heat waves or water'. Conclusions: We created a comprehensive list of VAS types reported by migraine patients based on all currently available data from clinical studies, which can be used for testing and validation in future studies. We propose that, based on this work, an official list of VAS types should be developed, preferably within the context of the International Classification of Headache Disorders of the International Headache Society.

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