Patients' Values and Preferences Regarding the Pharmacologic Treatment of Acute Episodic Migraine : A Rapid Review.

IF 15.2 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-18 DOI:10.7326/ANNALS-24-02203
Kylie Thaler, Camilla Neubauer-Bruckner, Johanna Feyertag, Arianna Gadinger, Emma Persad, Andrea Chapman, Gernot Wagner, Irma Klerings, Gerald Gartlehner
{"title":"Patients' Values and Preferences Regarding the Pharmacologic Treatment of Acute Episodic Migraine : A Rapid Review.","authors":"Kylie Thaler, Camilla Neubauer-Bruckner, Johanna Feyertag, Arianna Gadinger, Emma Persad, Andrea Chapman, Gernot Wagner, Irma Klerings, Gerald Gartlehner","doi":"10.7326/ANNALS-24-02203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding patients' values and preferences is essential for guideline development.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify and synthesize evidence on patients' values and preferences for the American College of Physicians (ACP) clinical guideline on the pharmacologic treatment of acute attacks of episodic migraine.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) were searched from inception to October 2024, and backward citation searches on pertinent publications were performed.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Reviewers dually screened abstracts and articles.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>One reviewer performed data extraction, and a second team member checked for accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed in the included studies dually.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>The data were synthesized narratively and the certainty of evidence (COE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and GRADE-CERQual (GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) guidance. Of 2243 references screened, we included 16 quantitative studies and 1 qualitative study. Effectiveness for pain was rated as more important than avoiding harms (moderate COE) or treating accompanying symptoms (moderate COE). Both effectiveness for pain and avoiding harms were more important than other attributes such as convenience or route of administration (moderate COE). Relieving nausea and vomiting was more important than other accompanying symptoms, such as photophobia (moderate COE). Cost was not important (moderate COE).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The choices in the included studies differed, making synthesis difficult and reducing certainty. Generalizability is limited because the included studies span 29 years and included patients of average age 35 to 47 years. Potential variation between patients was not captured.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients value effectiveness for pain foremost, and avoiding harm is more important than other treatment attributes.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023464889).</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"525-532"},"PeriodicalIF":15.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-02203","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Understanding patients' values and preferences is essential for guideline development.

Purpose: To identify and synthesize evidence on patients' values and preferences for the American College of Physicians (ACP) clinical guideline on the pharmacologic treatment of acute attacks of episodic migraine.

Data sources: MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) were searched from inception to October 2024, and backward citation searches on pertinent publications were performed.

Study selection: Reviewers dually screened abstracts and articles.

Data extraction: One reviewer performed data extraction, and a second team member checked for accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed in the included studies dually.

Data synthesis: The data were synthesized narratively and the certainty of evidence (COE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and GRADE-CERQual (GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) guidance. Of 2243 references screened, we included 16 quantitative studies and 1 qualitative study. Effectiveness for pain was rated as more important than avoiding harms (moderate COE) or treating accompanying symptoms (moderate COE). Both effectiveness for pain and avoiding harms were more important than other attributes such as convenience or route of administration (moderate COE). Relieving nausea and vomiting was more important than other accompanying symptoms, such as photophobia (moderate COE). Cost was not important (moderate COE).

Limitations: The choices in the included studies differed, making synthesis difficult and reducing certainty. Generalizability is limited because the included studies span 29 years and included patients of average age 35 to 47 years. Potential variation between patients was not captured.

Conclusions: Patients value effectiveness for pain foremost, and avoiding harm is more important than other treatment attributes.

Primary funding source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023464889).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者对急性发作性偏头痛药物治疗的价值和偏好:快速回顾。
背景:了解患者的价值观和偏好对指南的制定至关重要。目的:识别和综合患者对美国医师学会(ACP)急性发作性偏头痛药物治疗临床指南的价值和偏好的证据。数据来源:检索自成立至2024年10月的MEDLINE (Ovid)和CINAHL (EBSCO),并对相关出版物进行逆向引文检索。研究选择:审稿人对摘要和文章进行双重筛选。数据提取:一名审阅者执行数据提取,另一名团队成员检查准确性。对纳入研究的偏倚风险进行了双重评估。数据合成:对数据进行叙述性合成,并使用GRADE(建议评估、发展和评价分级)和GRADE- cerqual(定性研究综述证据可信度分级)指南评估证据的确定性(COE)。在筛选的2243篇文献中,我们包括16篇定量研究和1篇定性研究。疼痛的有效性被评为比避免伤害(中度COE)或治疗伴随症状(中度COE)更重要。缓解疼痛和避免伤害的有效性比其他属性更重要,如方便或给药途径(中度COE)。缓解恶心和呕吐比其他伴随症状更重要,如畏光(中度COE)。成本不重要(中等COE)。局限性:纳入研究的选择不同,使得合成困难,降低了确定性。由于纳入的研究跨度为29年,且纳入的患者平均年龄为35至47岁,因此通用性受到限制。没有捕捉到患者之间的潜在差异。结论:患者最看重的是疼痛的有效性,避免伤害比其他治疗属性更重要。主要资金来源:美国医师学会。(普洛斯彼罗:CRD42023464889)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
1136
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.
期刊最新文献
Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 3). How Would You Manage This Patient With Idiopathic Acute Pancreatitis? Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Annals Video Summary - Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19. Physicians Are Not Providers: The Ethical Significance of Names in Health Care: A Policy Paper From the American College of Physicians. A Humanitarian Crisis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1