ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2025
Exploring Pain Phenotyping in Cervicogenic Headache Management.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Jingtong Granules for Cervicogenic Headache: Clinical Efficacy, Mechanisms, and Translational Potential.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Adapting Tension-Type Headache to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Taxonomy: A Conceptual Proposal.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Pain-free survival after endoscopic neurotomy versus radiofrequency ablation of the C2 dorsal root ganglion for cervicogenic headache: a real-world comparison study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewIntervention trials for cervicogenic headache (CGH) often yield equivocal results with marked treatment effect heterogeneity, possibly reflecting variations in underlying pain mechanisms throughout the CGH population. Pain phenotyping or classifying patients into subgroups based on their predominant pain mechanism may facilitate more precise CGH treatment. This review aims to explore the role of pain phenotyping in CGH management. RECENT
findingsClinical evidence suggests two predominant pain mechanisms in the CGH population: nociceptive and nociplastic. Arguably, treatments for nociceptive pain should address the source of peripheral nociception, and treatments for nociplastic pain should address factors contributing to maladaptive central pain modulation. Due to centrally mediated analgesic effects, muscle relaxants are strongly recommended for managing both nociceptive and nociplastic CGH pain. Antidepressant medications may be most relevant for nociplastic CGH pain. Cervical spinal mobilization and manipulation interventions are strongly recommended for both nociceptive and nociplastic CGH pain. Nociplastic CGH pain may benefit from educational interventions regarding lifestyle factors such as physical activity, diet and weight management, sleep hygiene, and stress reduction. The anesthetic blockade, glucocorticoid injection, and radiofrequency denervation are strongly recommended for nociceptive CGH pain. Patients with persistent nociplastic CGH pain may benefit from neuromodulation interventions. Pain phenotyping may facilitate more precise clinical management of patients with CGH. This review provides evidence-informed recommendations for CGH pain phenotyping, including specific subgroups, clinical criteria, and stratified treatment approaches. Further prospective investigation is needed to determine the effects of pain phenotyping on clinical outcomes in patients with CGH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.