CAM Use for Headache and Migraine
The aim of the review is to examine the current prevalence, pattern, and details of CAM use among people with headache and migraine. A comprehensive search of the literature between 2000 and 2011 was undertaken in line with the exponential growth in CAM use and growing research attention upon this topic over the past decade. The CINAHL, MEDLINE, Health Source, and AMED databases were searched, using the following key terms and phrases: complementary medicine/therapy, alternative medicine/therapy, natural medicine/therapy, holistic medicine/therapy, headache, primary headache, migraine, cephalalgia, cephalgia, cranial pain, and hemicrania. The CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Health Source are 3 of the most popular, comprehensive databases for health and medicine scholarship. The AMED database was also chosen as an authoritative resource on allied health and complementary medicine scholarship. The database search was confined to peer-reviewed articles published in English.
To ensure all relevant international literature was identified, the authors also conducted hand searches in prominent headache and migraine journals including Headache, Cephalalgia, and Journal of Headache and Pain. Relevant works were also identified by examining bibliographies of publications.
The search results were imported into Endnote, a bibliographic management system software program, with all duplicated items removed. The remaining titles and their abstracts were screened and assessed independently by 2 authors who employed the following criteria to identify relevant studies for inclusion in the review: Peer-reviewed, research-based papers reporting new empirical findings focusing upon either CAM use among people with primary headache or migraine, or CAM use among a broader population or general population where CAM use among headache and/or migraine patients was clearly identifiable and extractable.
Those papers identified as individual case reports or CAM clinical trials were excluded from the review. In those circumstances where the abstract was deemed to not provide sufficient information, the full article was retrieved and examined prior to a final decision regarding inclusion or exclusion status.
The initial search identified 565 papers, and a total of 14 articles met the selection criteria. Two of these 14 articles were subsequently eliminated due to the reporting of the findings of surveys that were already covered elsewhere. As a result, a total of 12 papers were included in this review. The Figure reports the literature search process, and Table 1 summarizes the basic details of the included papers.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure.
Flowchart of literature search process. CAM = complementary and alternative medicine.
In order to appraise the quality of the papers identified for review, the authors employed a quality scoring system (Table 2) drawing upon quality assessment tools previously used for assessing prevalence studies on low back pain and CAM use among cancer patients. The use of these established analytical tools allowed for systematic comparison and evaluation of the CAM surveys reviewed.
Two authors assigned scores to the studies separately; the results were then compared and disagreements and differences resolved by discussion. Table 3 reports the quality score of each individual study.
Methods
Design
The aim of the review is to examine the current prevalence, pattern, and details of CAM use among people with headache and migraine. A comprehensive search of the literature between 2000 and 2011 was undertaken in line with the exponential growth in CAM use and growing research attention upon this topic over the past decade. The CINAHL, MEDLINE, Health Source, and AMED databases were searched, using the following key terms and phrases: complementary medicine/therapy, alternative medicine/therapy, natural medicine/therapy, holistic medicine/therapy, headache, primary headache, migraine, cephalalgia, cephalgia, cranial pain, and hemicrania. The CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Health Source are 3 of the most popular, comprehensive databases for health and medicine scholarship. The AMED database was also chosen as an authoritative resource on allied health and complementary medicine scholarship. The database search was confined to peer-reviewed articles published in English.
To ensure all relevant international literature was identified, the authors also conducted hand searches in prominent headache and migraine journals including Headache, Cephalalgia, and Journal of Headache and Pain. Relevant works were also identified by examining bibliographies of publications.
The search results were imported into Endnote, a bibliographic management system software program, with all duplicated items removed. The remaining titles and their abstracts were screened and assessed independently by 2 authors who employed the following criteria to identify relevant studies for inclusion in the review: Peer-reviewed, research-based papers reporting new empirical findings focusing upon either CAM use among people with primary headache or migraine, or CAM use among a broader population or general population where CAM use among headache and/or migraine patients was clearly identifiable and extractable.
Those papers identified as individual case reports or CAM clinical trials were excluded from the review. In those circumstances where the abstract was deemed to not provide sufficient information, the full article was retrieved and examined prior to a final decision regarding inclusion or exclusion status.
Search Outcomes
The initial search identified 565 papers, and a total of 14 articles met the selection criteria. Two of these 14 articles were subsequently eliminated due to the reporting of the findings of surveys that were already covered elsewhere. As a result, a total of 12 papers were included in this review. The Figure reports the literature search process, and Table 1 summarizes the basic details of the included papers.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure.
Flowchart of literature search process. CAM = complementary and alternative medicine.
Quality Appraisal
In order to appraise the quality of the papers identified for review, the authors employed a quality scoring system (Table 2) drawing upon quality assessment tools previously used for assessing prevalence studies on low back pain and CAM use among cancer patients. The use of these established analytical tools allowed for systematic comparison and evaluation of the CAM surveys reviewed.
Two authors assigned scores to the studies separately; the results were then compared and disagreements and differences resolved by discussion. Table 3 reports the quality score of each individual study.