Rebecca C. Burch

The Prevalence, Impact, and Treatment of Migraine and Severe Headaches in the United States: A Review of Statistics From National Surveillance Studies

Four ongoing US public health surveillance studies gather information relevant to the prevalence, impact, and treatment of headache and migraine: the National Health Interview Survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the National Ambulatory Care Survey, and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study is a privately funded study that provides comparative US population‐based estimates of the prevalence and burden of migraine and chronic migraine.

The Prevalence and Burden of Migraine and Severe Headache in the United States: Updated Statistics From Government Health Surveillance Studies

The US National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control, conducts ongoing public health surveillance activities. The US Armed Forces also maintains a comprehensive database of medical information. We aimed to identify the most current prevalence estimates of migraine and severe headache in the United States adult civilian and active duty service populations from these national government surveys, to assess stability of prevalence estimates over time, and to identify additional information pertinent to the burden and treatment of migraine and other severe headache conditions.

The 2012 AHS/AAN Guidelines for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: A Summary and Comparison With Other Recent Clinical Practice Guidelines

Background.— Updated guidelines for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine have been issued by the American Headache Society (AHS) and the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). We summarize key 2012 guideline recommendations and changes from previous guidelines. We review the characteristics, methods, consistency, and quality of the AHS/AAN guidelines in comparison with recently issued guidelines from other specialty societies.

Meditation for Migraines: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Our objective was to assess the safety, feasibility, and effects of the standardized 8‐week mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR) course in adults with migraines.

Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison

BackgroundThe Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals.MethodsOn July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified – potential predatory journals (source: Beall’s List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated.ResultsNinety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals’ homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric – the Index Copernicus Value – versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median

Migraine and risk of incident diabetes in women: A prospective study

100 USD, IQR

Registration status and outcome reporting of trials published in core headache medicine journals

63–

The Prevalence and Impact of Migraine and Severe Headache in the United States: Figures and Trends From Government Health Studies

150) than open access journals (

Risk of Stroke Associated With Use of Estrogen Containing Contraceptives in Women With Migraine: A Systematic Review

1865 USD, IQR

Measuring pain intensity in headache trials: which scale to use?:

800–