4.7 Article

Migraine practice patterns among neurologists

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 62, 期 11, 页码 1926-1931

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.62.11.1926

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the attitudes, knowledge, and practice patterns of US neurologists regarding migraine management relative to the US Headache Consortium Guidelines ( the Guidelines). Methods: Two samples of 600 neurologists each were selected from the American Academy of Neurology membership database. The first group received a Migraine Attitudes, Knowledge, and Practice Patterns (MKAPP) Survey. The second group received a Clinical Vignette ( CV) Survey, presenting two patient histories and correspondent questions. Results: The MKAPP Survey showed that most neurologists felt that migraine was primarily a disease of the brain with a well-established neurobiological basis (69%) and an important part of their practice (60%). Most (53%) indicated that they routinely used neuroimaging in evaluating severe headache, an approach not recommended by the Guidelines. Most favored acute treatment limits, but 36% did not agree with the Guidelines that acute treatment should be limited to 2 or 3 days/week. In the CV Survey, for vignette 1, most (91%) correctly diagnosed migraine, 31% requested neuroimaging in the absence of indications, 64% appropriately recommended a triptan, and 45% recommended a preventive medication in the absence of indications. For vignette 2, 78% diagnosed migraine, 71% appropriately ordered neuroimaging, 80% appropriately recommended a preventive medication, and 38% prescribed a triptan in face of clear contraindication. Conclusions: Educational initiatives aiming to increase the awareness of the Guidelines among neurologists should highlight the full range of migraine symptoms that support the diagnosis, appropriate use of neuroimaging, indications for preventive treatments, issues of triptan cardiovascular safety, and preventing rebound headaches.

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

4.7
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