4.5 Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for the Management of Pediatric Migraine

期刊

HEADACHE
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 349-362

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/head.13016

关键词

cognitive behavioral therapy; migraine; adolescent; childhood; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction.-Migraine headaches are common in children and adolescents. Current pharmacologic treatment options are limited despite the prevalence and debilitating effects of pediatric migraine. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based practice that focuses on the development of coping strategies and cognitive restructuring to alter the pain experience. Till date, no meta-analysis has been done to examine the use of CBT in pediatric migraine. Methods.-Using the keywords (cognitive behavioral therapy OR cognitive behavior therapy OR cognitive behavioral therapy OR cognitive behavior therapy OR CBT) AND (headache OR migraine), a preliminary search on the PubMed and Ovid database yielded 3841 articles published in English between 1 Jan 1980 and 1 May 2016. Full articles were also reviewed for references of interest. After data extraction, 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results.-The results of the meta-analysis well-support the clinical role of CBT in the management of pediatric migraine. The pooled odds ratios of clinically significant improvement, that is, 50% or greater headache activity reduction post-treatment and at follow-up (3 months or later) were OR 9.11 (95% CI: 5.01 to 16.58, P<.001) and OR 9.18 (95% CI: 5.69 to 14.81, P<.001) respectively, demonstrating significant clinical improvement with CBT as compared with wait-list control, placebo, or standard medication. Furthermore, the clinical improvement was stable, even at a 1-year follow-up as evident in some of the studies. Conclusion.-There is good evidence that CBT is beneficial to children suffering from migraine, and may also augment the efficacy of standard medications such as amitriptyline.

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