Dataset Information

Development and Evaluation of a Screening Tool to Aid the Diagnosis of a Cluster Headache.

ABSTRACT: Cluster headache (CH), a severe primary headache, is often misdiagnosed and mismanaged. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a screening tool to aid the diagnosis of CH. We developed a novel 12-item screening tool. This was comprised of four components: (1) images depicting headache pain; (2) pain descriptors; (3) key questions that could differentiate between CH and migraine; and (4) a visual analogue pain scale. The total possible questionnaire score ranged from 3-32. Patients with CH and migraines (control group) were recruited prospectively from a headache centre in the North of England, UK. Two-hundred and ninety-six patients were included in the study: 81 CH patients, 36 of which suffer with episodic CH and 45 with chronic CH; 215 migraine patients, 92 of which suffer with episodic migraine and 123 with chronic migraine. The mean questionnaire score was higher in CH patients versus migraine patients (28.4 versus 19.5). At a cut-off score of >25 out of 32, the screening tool had a sensitivity of 86.4% and a specificity of 92.0% in differentiating between CH and migraine. The screening tool could be a useful instrument to aid the diagnosis of a CH. The images depicting headache pain do not clearly discriminate between CH and migraine.

SUBMITTER: Buture A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7071485 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and Evaluation of a Screening Tool to Aid the Diagnosis of a Cluster Headache.

Buture Alina A Boland Jason W JW Dikomitis Lisa L Huang Chao C Ahmed Fayyaz F

Brain sciences 20200201 2

Cluster headache (CH), a severe primary headache, is often misdiagnosed and mismanaged. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a screening tool to aid the diagnosis of CH. We developed a novel 12-item screening tool. This was comprised of four components: (1) images depicting headache pain; (2) pain descriptors; (3) key questions that could differentiate between CH and migraine; and (4) a visual analogue pain scale. The total possible questionnaire score ranged from 3-32. Patients wit ...[more]

PMID: 32024213

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop, pilot and refine a decision aid (ahead of a randomised trial evaluation) for women around age 50 facing their initial decision about whether to undergo mammography screening.DesignTwo-stage mixed-method pilot study including qualitative interviews (n=15) and a randomised comparison using a quantitative survey (n=34).SettingNew South Wales, Australia.ParticipantsWomen aged 43-59 years with no personal history of breast cancer.InterventionsThe decision aid provides evidence-based information about important outcomes of mammography screening over 20 years (breast cancer mortality reduction, overdetection and false positives) compared with no screening. The information is presented in a short booklet for women, combining text and visual formats. A control version produced for the purposes of comparison omits the overdetection-related content.OutcomesComprehension of key decision aid content and acceptability of the materials.ResultsMost women considered the decision aid clear and helpful and would recommend it to others. Nonetheless, the piloting process raised important issues that we tried to address in iterative revisions. Some participants found it hard to understand overdetection and why it is of concern, while there was often confusion about the distinction between overdetection and false positives. In a screening context, encountering balanced information rather than persuasion appears to be contrary to people's expectations, but women appreciated the opportunity to become better informed.ConclusionsThe concept of overdetection is complex and new to the public. This study highlights some key challenges for communicating about this issue. It is important to clarify that overdetection differs from false positives in terms of its more serious consequences (overtreatment and associated harms). Screening decision aids also must clearly explain their purpose of facilitating informed choice. A staged approach to development and piloting of decision aids is recommended to further improve understanding of overdetection and support informed decision-making about screening.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines recommend that women 75 years and older should be informed of the benefits and risks of mammography before being screened. However, few are adequately informed.ObjectivesTo develop and evaluate a mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women 75 years and older.DesignWe designed the DA using international standards. Between July 14, 2010, and April 10, 2012, participants completed a pretest survey and read the DA before an appointment with their primary care physician. They completed a posttest survey after their appointment. Medical records were reviewed for follow-up information.Setting and participantsBoston, Massachusetts, academic primary care practice. Eligible women were aged 75 to 89 years, English speaking, had not had a mammogram in 9 months but had been screened within the past 3 years, and did not have a history of dementia or invasive or noninvasive breast cancer. Of 84 women approached, 27 declined to participate, 12 were unable to complete the study for logistical reasons, and 45 participated.InterventionsThe DA includes information on breast cancer risk, life expectancy, competing mortality risks, possible outcomes of screening, and a values clarification exercise.Main outcomes and measuresKnowledge of the benefits and risks of screening, decisional conflict, and screening intentions; documentation in the medical record of a discussion of the risks and benefits of mammography with a primary care physician within 6 months; and the receipt of screening within 15 months. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar test to compare pretest-posttest information.ResultsThe median age of participants was 79 years, 69% (31 of 45) were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity, and 60% (27 of 45) had attended at least some college. Comparison of posttest results with pretest results demonstrated 2 findings. First, knowledge of the benefits and risks of screening improved (P < .001). Second, fewer participants intended to be screened (56% [25 of 45] afterward compared with 82% [37 of 45] before, P = .03). Decisional conflict declined but not significantly (P = .10). In the following 6 months, 53% (24 of 45) of participants had a primary care physician note that documented the discussion of the risks and benefits of screening compared with 11% (5 of 45) in the previous 5 years (P < .001). While 84% (36 of 43) had been screened within 2 years of participating, 60% (26 of 43) were screened within 15 months after participating (≥ 2 years since their last mammogram) (P = .01). Overall, 93% (42 of 45) found the DA helpful.Conclusions and relevanceA DA may improve older women's decision making about mammography screening.

Project description:BackgroundCluster headache (CH) is a severe neurovascular disorder and an increasing amount of evidence points to a genetic contribution to this disease. When CH was first described, it was observed that alcohol may precipitate an attack during the active phase of the disease. The alcohol dehydrogenase 4 (ADH4) gene encodes an enzyme which contributes to the metabolization of alcohol and is, therefore, an interesting candidate gene for CH. Two Italian groups have reported association of the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs1126671 located in the ADH4 gene with an increased risk of CH in Italy. In addition, one of the groups found an association between the ADH4 SNP rs1800759 and CH.ObjectiveTo perform a replication study on the ADH4 SNPs rs1126671 and rs1800759 in a large homogeneous Swedish case-control cohort in order to further investigate the possible contribution of ADH4 to CH.MethodsA total of 390 unrelated patients diagnosed with CH and 389 controls representing a general Swedish population were recruited to the study. DNA samples from patients and controls were genotyped for the two ADH4 SNPs rs1126671 and rs1800759 using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Statistical analyses of genotype, allele and haplotype frequencies for the two SNPs were performed and compared between patients and controls.ResultsFor rs1126671, the minor allele frequency (A allele) was 32.8% (n = 254) in controls compared with 31.9% (n = 249) in CH patients. The minor allele frequency (A allele) of rs1800759 was 42.3% (n = 324) in controls and 41.9% (n = 327) in CH patients. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences in allele as well as in genotype or haplotype frequencies between the patient and control group for either SNP. This was also seen after stratifying the patient group for experiencing alcohol as a trigger factor.ConclusionsThe data did not support an association of the ADH4 SNPs rs1126671 and rs1800759 with CH. A comparison with previous studies revealed variance in genotype, allele, and haplotype frequencies among the different populations which might contribute to the contradictory results. Although a significant association with CH in Swedish case-control group was not found, ADH4 as a candidate gene for CH could not be excluded.

Dataset Information

Development and Evaluation of a Screening Tool to Aid the Diagnosis of a Cluster Headache.

Publications

Development and Evaluation of a Screening Tool to Aid the Diagnosis of a Cluster Headache.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets