↓ Skip to main content

Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) in the acute treatment of migraine: a comparison with usual care and acute migraine medications

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Headache and Pain, July 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 1,417)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
65 news outlets
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) in the acute treatment of migraine: a comparison with usual care and acute migraine medications
Published in
The Journal of Headache and Pain, July 2019
DOI 10.1186/s10194-019-1033-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan M. Rapoport, Jo H. Bonner, Tamar Lin, Dagan Harris, Yaron Gruper, Alon Ironi, Robert P. Cowan

Abstract

There is a significant unmet need for new, effective and well tolerated acute migraine treatments. A recent study has demonstrated that a novel remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) treatment provides superior clinically meaningful pain relief with a low rate of device-related adverse events. The results reported herein compare the efficacy of REN with current standard of care in the acute treatments of migraine. We performed a post-hoc analysis on a subgroup of participants with migraine from a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled, multicenter study on acute care. The original study included a 2-4 weeks run-in phase, in which migraine attacks were treated according to patient preference (i.e., usual care) and reported in an electronic diary; next, participants entered a double-blind treatment phase in which they treated the attacks with an active or sham device. The efficacy of REN was compared to the efficacy of usual care or pharmacological treatments in the run-in phase in a within-subject design that included participants who treated at least one attack with the active REN device and reported pain intensity at 2 h post-treatment. Of the 252 patients randomized, there were 99 participants available for analysis. At 2 h post-treatment, pain relief was achieved in 66.7% of the participants using REN versus 52.5% participants with usual care (p < 0.05). Pain relief at 2 h in at least one of two attacks was achieved by 84.4% of participants versus 68.9% in usual care (p < 0.05). REN and usual care were similarly effective for pain-free status at 2 h. The results also demonstrate the non-inferiority of REN compared with acute pharmacological treatments and its non-dependency on preventive medication use. REN is an effective acute treatment for migraine with non-inferior efficacy compared to current acute migraine therapies. Together with a very favorable safety profile, these findings suggest that REN may offer a promising alternative for the acute treatment of migraine and could be considered first line treatment in some patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03361423 . Registered 18 November 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 15%
Other 8 8%
Student > Master 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 53 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 56 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 483. 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 11 January 2023.
All research outputs
#48,619
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#5
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#975
of 347,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#1
of 25 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 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 347,731 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.