↓ Skip to main content

Cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for preventive and acute treatment of episodic and chronic migraine and migraine-associated sleep disturbance: preliminary findings from a…

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Headache and Pain, December 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for preventive and acute treatment of episodic and chronic migraine and migraine-associated sleep disturbance: preliminary findings from a prospective observational cohort study
Published in
The Journal of Headache and Pain, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s10194-015-0582-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas M. Kinfe, Bogdan Pintea, Sajjad Muhammad, Sebastian Zaremba, Sandra Roeske, Bruce J. Simon, Hartmut Vatter

Abstract

The debilitating nature of migraine and challenges associated with treatment-refractory migraine have a profound impact on patients. With the need for alternatives to pharmacologic agents, vagus nerve stimulation has demonstrated efficacy in treatment-refractory primary headache disorders. We investigated the use of cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment and prevention of migraine attacks in treatment-refractory episodic and chronic migraine (EM and CM) and evaluated the impact of nVNS on migraine-associated sleep disturbance, disability, and depressive symptoms. Twenty patients with treatment-refractory migraine were enrolled in this 3-month, open-label, prospective observational study. Patients administered nVNS prophylactically twice daily at prespecified times and acutely as adjunctive therapy for migraine attacks. Pain intensity (visual analogue scale [VAS]); number of headache days per month and number of migraine attacks per month; number of acutely treated attacks and time to achieve pain relief; sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]); migraine disability assessment (MIDAS); depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory(®) [BDI]); and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Of the 20 enrolled patients, 10 patients each had been diagnosed with EM and CM. Prophylaxis with nVNS was associated with significant overall reductions in patient-perceived pain intensity (mean VAS scores at baseline vs 3 months: 7.75 ± 0.64 vs 4.05 ± 0.76; 95 % CI: 3.3, 4.1; p < 0.0001), mean number of headache days per month (baseline vs 3 months: 14.7 ± 4.1 vs 8.9 ± 3.66; 95 % CI: 3.3, 8.3; p < 0.0001), and mean number of migraine attacks per month (baseline vs 3 months: 7.3 ± 3.85 vs 4.45 ± 2.48; 95 % CI: 0.8, 4.9; p < 0.01). For acutely treated migraine attacks, a reduction in mean time (minutes) to achieve pain relief (baseline vs 3 months: 84.5 ± 39.1 vs 52.75 ± 16.42; 95 % CI: 12.6, 51.0; p < 0.002) was noted. Significant improvements, more evident in patients with EM, were noted in MIDAS and BDI scores along with a trend toward improvement in PSQI daytime dysfunction subscore (p = 0.07). No severe or serious AEs occurred. In this study, treatment with nVNS was safe and provided clinically meaningful decreases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of migraine attacks in patients with treatment-refractory migraine. Improvements in migraine-associated disability, depression, and sleep quality were also noted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 139 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Researcher 26 18%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 9 6%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 29%
Neuroscience 24 17%
Engineering 10 7%
Psychology 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 38 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 25 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,935,965
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#222
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,635
of 392,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 392,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.