Application of the ICHD-II criteria to the diagnosis of primary chronic headaches via a computerized structured record.

BACKGROUND: The authors recently developed a software program designed to analyze clinical data from patients affected by primary headache. The program is based exclusively on the International Classification of Headache Disorders 2nd edition (ICHD-II) criteria. This software examines all the diagnoses of primary headaches on the basis of the variables needed to fulfill these mandatory criteria. METHODS: We tested the software, Primary Headaches Analyser 1.0 INT (PHA), by entering and analyzing clinical data from 200 consecutive patients affected by primary chronic headaches and evaluating the corresponding output diagnoses. RESULTS: The diagnosis of chronic migraine (1.5.1) was obtained in 68 cases (34 %) and that of probable chronic migraine (1.6.5) plus probable medication-overuse headache (8.2.8) in 46 (23%). Chronic tension-type headache (2.3) and probable chronic tension-type headache (2.4.3) plus probable medication-overuse headache (8.2.8) were diagnosed in 24 (12%) and 2 (1%) patients, respectively. Moreover, 4 and 12 patients, respectively, received both the diagnosis of chronic migraine (1.5.1) plus chronic tension-type headache (2.3) and of probable migraine (1.6.1) without aura plus chronic tension-type headache (2.3). In the remaining 44 cases (22%), none of the chronic primary headaches disorders defined by ICHD-II received an output diagnosis from the program. This was due mainly to the fact that the criteria fulfilled were insufficient for the diagnoses of migraine without (1.1) aura plus chronic migraine or, more infrequently, chronic tension-type headache. CONCLUSIONS: Our software program permitted diagnoses of chronic migraine, chronic tension-type or their probable forms (with or without MOH) in 78% of 200 patients with headache 15 or more days per month. In the remaining cases the inability to provide a specific diagnosis may be explained in part by the fact that the criteria for both diagnoses are too stringent and do not accurately reflect variations of the headache pattern in these chronic forms.

Application of ICHD 2nd edition criteria for primary headaches with the aid of a computerised, structured medical record for the specialist.

We tested the computerised, structured medical record by entering and analysing the consecutive clinical sheets of primary headaches in the episodic forms (200) and chronic headache (200) and the corresponding output diagnoses of patients attending our Headache Centre. A diagnosis of one of the primary headache forms was obtained in 67.9% of cases. A certain diagnosis of primary headache plus that of a probable form was obtained in 24.4% of cases (12.7% represented by chronic migraine (CM) or chronic tension-type headache (CTTH)+probable medication overuse headache). Only probable forms were diagnosed in the remaining 7.3% (as single probable diagnosis in 5.8% of cases or multiple diagnoses of probable forms in the remaining ones). The percentage of certain diagnoses mainly in the chronic headache group (28.4%), and to a lesser extent tension-type headache (6.5%), were obtained in 34.9% of cases. A certain diagnosis of one chronic form plus that of a probable form was obtained in 50.8% of cases (26.9% represented by probable medication-overuse headache). Only probable forms were diagnosed in 13.46% (as single probable diagnosis in 8.73% of cases or multiple diagnoses of probable forms in the remaining ones). In the other cases, the ICHD-II classification does not allow the diagnoses of CM, CTTH or probable forms and medication overuse headache because the mandatory criteria for the diagnoses are too stringent and do not reflect modifications of the headache pattern in relation to its chronicity. These preliminary results underscore the usefulness of a computerised device based on the ICHD 2nd edition for diagnostic purposes in tertiary centres dedicated to headaches in clinical practice as well as its relevance for research. This computerised device may help to validate the new diagnostic criteria and to answer some emerging questions from the application of the new classification version, the relevance of which should be verified in clinical practice.

Application of the 1988 International Headache Society diagnostic criteria in nine Italian headache centers using a computerized structured record.

BACKGROUND: The actual application of the current International Headache Society (IHS) diagnostic criteria in clinical practice has not been investigated thoroughly. OBJECTIVES: To develop a computerized, structured, medical record based exclusively on the IHS classification system. DESIGN AND METHOD: We tested the computerized structured record by entering and analyzing data reported on the case sheets of 500 consecutive patients attending nine headache centers in Italy. All clinical diagnoses in the study were made according to current IHS criteria. The rate of concordance between the diagnosis provided by the computerized structured record and that reported by clinicians on the case sheets was calculated, and reasons for any discrepancies between the two diagnoses were analyzed. RESULTS: Concordance between the two diagnoses was found in 345 of 500 cases examined (69%). In the remaining 155 cases, diagnoses reached with the computerized structured record and case sheets were impossible or discordant with respect to the diagnoses made by the clinician. In 144 of these cases (28.8%), this was due to missing information or errors in the diagnosis recorded by the clinicians on the patient case sheet. In particular, the diagnosis could not be reached using the computerized structured record in 105 cases (20.6%) because of a lack of one or more data needed in formulating a correct diagnosis according to the IHS operational criteria for one of the primary headache disorders. In the remaining 41 cases some data were missing, but the data available were sufficient to reach a diagnosis according to the IHS criteria. Moreover, the diagnoses reached using the computerized structured record were not in agreement with those made by the clinicians in another 39 cases (7.9%) due to an incorrect interpretation by the clinicians of the data reported on the patients' case sheets. In only 2.2% of the cases (n = 11) misdiagnoses were due to errors of the program that were promptly corrected. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that incorrect application of IHS criteria for the diagnosis of primary headache may occur in as many as one third of patients attending headache centers and that use of a computerized structured record based exclusively on current IHS criteria may overcome this deficiency.