Evidence mapPaperPMID 40229683Full record

ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2025

Migraine with and without aura-two distinct entities? A narrative review.

Olga Grodzka, Ketevan Dzagoevi, Tayla Rees, Goncalo Cabral, Piotr Chądzyński, Stefano Di Antonio, Patryk Sochań, Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink, Christian Lampl, European Headache Federation School of Advanced Studies (EHF-SAS)

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of headache and pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The potential application of electrophysiological indicators in TMS treatment for MOH.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Olga GrodzkaDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Ketevan Dzagoevi *Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Tayla Rees *Headache Group, Wolfson Sensory Pain and Regeneration Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Goncalo Cabral *Neurology Department, Hospital de Egas Moniz, Unidade Local de Saúde Lisboa Ocidental, Lisbon, Portugal.
Piotr Chądzyński *Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Stefano Di Antonio *Department of Health Science and Technology, Center for Pain and Neuroplasticity (CNAP), SMI, School of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Patryk Sochań *Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink *Division of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Christian Lampl *Department of Neurology, Konventhospital Barmherzige Brüder, Linz, Austria. Christian.Lampl@bblinz.at.
European Headache Federation School of Advanced Studies (EHF-SAS)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Migraine is a primary headache disorder, with a prevalence estimated at approximately 15% globally. According to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD3), there are three significant types of migraine: migraine without aura (MO), migraine with aura (MA), and chronic migraine (CM), the former being the most common. Migraine diagnosis is based on official criteria specific to each type. Although a lot is already known about the origin of migraine aura, its pathophysiology is still an object of research.Long-term discussions have been held about MO and MA, with some evidence for the same underlying pathogenesis of both and other arguments against it. In this narrative review, we decided to analyse multiple factors from the perspective of similarities and differences between these two types of migraine. The aim was to understand better the bases underlying both types of migraine.Aspects such as genetics, molecular bases, relation with hormones, epidemiological and clinical features, neuroimaging, neurophysiology, treatment response, and migraine complications are covered to find similarities and differences between MO and MA. Although epidemiology shares similarities for both types, there are slight alterations in sex and age distribution. Genetics and pathogenesis showed some crucial differences. Conditions, such as vestibular symptoms and depression, were found to correlate similarly with both types of migraine. For some features, including increased cardiovascular risk, the tendency appeared to be the same; however, migraine types differ in the strength of correlation. Finally, in cases such as hormones, the influence has shown opposite directions. Therefore, although migraine with and without aura are considered two types of the same disease, more research should focus on their differences, thus finally enabling better specific treatment options for both types of migraine.

Indexed as

Migraine with AuraMigraine without AuraHumansHeadachesMigraine auraMigraine with auraMigraine without auraPrimary headache disorder

Identifiers

PMID40229683
PMCPMC11995571

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.