↓ Skip to main content

Zhengtian Capsule versus flunarizine in patients with migraine: a multi-center, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Zhengtian Capsule versus flunarizine in patients with migraine: a multi-center, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12906-016-1321-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kegang Cao, Fang Han, Anji Lin, Wenming Yang, Jianjun Zhao, Hui Zhang, Yanbing Ding, Wei Xie, Yinping Xu, Tingmin Yu, Xinzhi Wang, Xiaosu Yang, Jiying Zhou, Qun Hou, Lihua Yu, Ying Gao

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to assess whether Zhengtian Capsule was non-inferior to flunarizine in efficacy and safety profile for prevention of migraine in adults. This was a double-dummy, double-blind, multicenter, positive drug (flunarizine), parallel randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial. Patients (n = 360) were randomized in a 1:1 to receive either Zhengtian Capsule or flunarizine, including 12 weeks' intervention and 4 weeks' follow-up. The primary outcome measure was responder rate (defined as the percentage of subjects in a treatment group with 50 % or greater reduction in attack frequency during treatment compared with the baseline period). The secondary outcome measures included migraine attack frequency, the number of migraine days, pain evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS) score, duration of migraine attacks, the times of using analgesics, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of migraine and the scores of short-form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36). Weight variation in both groups was also evaluated. Adverse events were monitored throughout the trial. Zhengtian Capsule was non-inferior to flunarizine in responder rate at week 12 and follow-up period (P = 0.002, P < 0.001). There was fewer migraine days in Zhengtian Capsule group at follow-up period compared with flunarizine (P = 0.001). For the total duration of migraine attacks, there was significant group difference at week 4 which favored the control group (P = 0.009). For the total score of PRO scale, there was statistical difference between the two groups at follow-up period (P = 0.021). There were also group differences between the two groups in the dimensions of somatization symptoms at week 4 (P = 0.022) and functional status at week 12 and follow-up period (P < 0.001, P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in migraine attack frequency, VAS scores reduction, consumption of acute pain drugs and the dimension scores of SF-36 at any time interval of the treatment period (P > 0.05). No severe adverse events occurred in the trial. Flunarizine was found associated with a weight gain. Zhengtian Capsule was non-inferior to flunarizine with regard to the primary endpoint. In addition, it could reduce migraine days and improve the functional status and somatization symptoms of migraine patients with good safety profile. This trial was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR), ChiCTR-TRC-13004412.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 18%
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Unspecified 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 24 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Unspecified 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 26 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,992,567
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,621
of 3,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,895
of 322,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#35
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 322,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.