↓ Skip to main content

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Headache and Pain, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine
Published in
The Journal of Headache and Pain, August 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10194-010-0243-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lidia Savi, Stefano Omboni, Carlo Lisotto, Giorgio Zanchin, Michel D. Ferrari, Dario Zava, Lorenzo Pinessi

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1-3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9±1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2±1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly (p<0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p=NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 2%
France 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 44 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Unspecified 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 7 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,426,857
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#468
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,864
of 96,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 96,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.