Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Headache and migraine clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review and assessment of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations.
Ng, Jeremy Y; Hanna, Christina.
Afiliação
  • Ng JY; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada. ngjy2@mcmaster.ca.
  • Hanna C; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada.
BMC Complement Med Ther ; 21(1): 236, 2021 Sep 22.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34551759
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Globally, 3 billion people suffer from either migraine or tension-type headache disorder over their lifetime. Approximately 50% of American adults suffering from headache or migraine have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, the quality and quantity of recommendations associated with such therapies across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of these conditions are unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of such CAM recommendations.

METHODS:

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched for eligible CPGs. CPGs were included if they provided any therapy recommendations. Eligible CPGs included those written for adult patients with headache and migraine; CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice for quality using the AGREE II instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections.

RESULTS:

Of 486 unique search results, 21 CPGs were eligible and quality assessed; fifteen CPGs mentioned CAM, of which 13 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG assessment yielded higher scaled domain percentages than the CAM section across all domains. The results from highest to lowest were as follows (overall, CAM) clarity of presentation (66.7% vs. 50.0%), scope and purpose (63.9% vs. 61.1%), stakeholder involvement (22.2% vs. 13.9%), rigour of development (13.5% vs. 9.4%), applicability (6.3% vs. 0.0%), and editorial independence (0.0% vs. 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS:

Of the eligible CPGs, the CAM sections were of lower quality compared to the overall recommendations across all domains of the AGREE II instrument. CPGs that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CAM therapies in the context of headache and migraine.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde / Padrões de Prática Médica / Terapias Complementares / Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto / Cefaleia / Transtornos de Enxaqueca Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Complement Med Ther Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Canadá

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde / Padrões de Prática Médica / Terapias Complementares / Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto / Cefaleia / Transtornos de Enxaqueca Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Complement Med Ther Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Canadá