Establishing principles for migraine management in primary care.

Published guidelines for the management of migraine in primary care were evaluated by an international advisory board of headache specialists, to establish evidence-based principles of migraine management that could be recommended for international use. Twelve principles of migraine management were identified, covering screening, diagnosis, management and treatments: Almost all headaches are benign/primary and can be managed by all practising clinicians. Use questions/a questionnaire to assess the impact on daily living and everyday activities, for diagnostic screening and to aid management decisions. Share migraine management between the clinician and the patient. Provide individualised care for migraine and encourage patients to manage their migraine. Follow up patients, preferably with migraine calendars or diaries. Regularly re-evaluate the success of therapy using specific outcome measures and monitor the use of acute and prophylactic medications regularly. Adapt migraine management to changes that occur in the illness and its presentation over the years. Provide acute medication to all migraine patients and recommend it is taken at the appropriate time, during the attack. Provide rescue medication/symptomatic treatment for when the initial therapy fails. Offer to prescribe prophylactic medications, as well as lifestyle changes, to patients who have four or more migraine attacks per month or who are resistant to acute medications. Consider concurrent co-morbidities in the choice of appropriate prophylactic medication. Work with the patient to achieve comfort with mutually agreed upon treatment and ensure that it is practical for their lifestyle and headache presentation. Using these principles, practising clinicians can screen and diagnose their headache patients effectively and manage their migraine patients over the long-term natural history of the migraine process. In this way, the majority of migraine patients can be well treated in primary care, ensuring a structured and individualised approach to headache management, and conserving valuable healthcare resources.

Menstrual migraine in a representative Dutch population sample: prevalence, disability and treatment.

We assessed the prevalence of menstrual migraine and its restrictions on daily activities in a representative Dutch population sample of 1181 Dutch women, aged 13-55 years. Further, we evaluated the potential role of oral contraceptives, and how menstrual migraine is treated. More than half suffered from menstrual complaints, a substantial proportion reported headache or migraine as a frequent problem. Use of oral contraceptives seemed to reduce the occurrence of menstrual complaints, but not the occurrence of headache and migraine. In our study, the prevalence of menstrual migraine (3%) is lower than in the literature, most probably because we did not use a selected group of patients but a population-based sample of ordinary women. It was confirmed that attacks of menstrual migraine are more severe, of longer duration, and more resistant to treatment than migraine attacks at other times of the month.

Identifying relevant diagnostic studies in MEDLINE. The diagnostic value of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and dipstick as an example.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine sensitivity and positive predictive value of MEDLINE searching for diagnostic studies, relevant for the primary health care setting. METHOD: Results of MEDLINE searches were compared with a reference standard collection of studies on two subjects, the diagnostic value of ESR in discriminating between 'pathology' and 'no pathology', and the dipstick method in diagnosing urinary tract infections. The main outcome measures were sensitivity (proportion of the total number of reference standard diagnostic studies that could be identified by the search) and positive predictive value (proportion of the total number of publications retrieved by MEDLINE that were incorporated in the reference standard). RESULTS: The combined MeSH and freetext search was more sensitive than MeSH term searching only, for both the ESR and the dipstick search. With this combined search sensitivities of 0.91 and 0.98 and predictive values of 0.10 and 0.68 were found for ESR and dipstick respectively. By restricting the search with keywords describing the primary health care setting the predictive values increased to 0.72 and 1.00 but sensitivity dropped to 0.10 and 0.07 (ESR and dipstick respectively). CONCLUSION: Combining freetext and MeSH term searching, without restriction to the primary health care setting, is a valuable strategy in systematically searching for available evidence on the value of a diagnostic test in the scope of a specific disease. The predictive value seems to depend on the breadth of the disease area. MEDLINE should provide a term such as 'diagnostic evaluation study' to be used in the limit field Publication Type to specify diagnostic studies.

Use of symptoms and signs to diagnose maxillary sinusitis in general practice: comparison with ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the incidence of maxillary sinusitis in general practice and the predictive value of symptoms and signs. DESIGN: Population based study. SETTING: 9 general practices with 15,220 patients aged 15 years and older on the list. PATIENTS: 400 patients with 441 episodes in whom practitioners intended to confirm or to exclude sinusitis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Results of ultrasonography and signs and symptoms associated with positive results. RESULTS: 212 of the 441 episodes were confirmed by ultrasonography. 15.7 episodes occurred per 1000 adults per year. The five symptoms beginning with common cold (beta coefficient = 1.035), purulent rhinorrhoea (0.996), pain at bending (0.950), unilateral maxillary pain (0.640), and pain in teeth (0.606) were associated with positive results on ultrasonography. General practitioners' clinical diagnoses were correct in 177 episodes, false positive in 88, false negative in 22, and uncertain in 154. With an algorithm using the five weighted symptoms 243 of the diagnoses would have been correct, but 110 would remain uncertain and 44 cases would have been missed. CONCLUSION: The five symptoms algorithm would improve diagnostic accuracy of general practitioners, but incorrect and uncertain diagnoses cannot be avoided.