SynthesisThe journal of headache and pain2026
Interictal burden in migraine: a systematic review of conceptual domains and measurement properties of instruments.
Synthesis in The journal of headache and pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMigraine imposes significant burden not only during acute attacks but also during headache-free interictal periods. Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to assess this interictal burden, yet the quality of their measurement properties has not been systematically evaluated.
objectivesTo identify instruments used to assess interictal burden in migraine, evaluate their measurement properties using the COSMIN methodology, and synthesize the conceptual domains of interictal burden.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection was conducted from database inception to 20 February 2026. Studies evaluating measurement properties of PROMs assessing interictal burden or migraine impact in migraine populations were eligible. The COSMIN risk-of-bias checklist and criteria for good measurement properties were applied. Findings were synthesized in accordance with PRISMA 2020.
resultsAmong 29 included studies, three instruments were identified: the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4 (MIBS-4; 26 studies), the Eurolight questionnaire (1 study), and the Fear of Attacks Inventory (FAMI; 2 studies). Seven conceptual domains of interictal burden were identified: functional impairment, social and relational impact, psychological and emotional distress, cognitive dysfunction, sensory symptoms, physical symptoms, and behavioral modifications. Evidence of measurement properties was concentrated in construct validity (19 studies) and responsiveness (8 studies). Structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and content validity were sparsely evaluated. The MIBS-4 demonstrated consistent convergent and known-groups validity and sensitivity to change across preventive therapies, including CGRP-targeted treatments and onabotulinumtoxinA.
conclusionsThe MIBS-4 is the most widely used instrument for assessing interictal burden. Despite encouraging evidence of construct validity and responsiveness, comprehensive psychometric studies addressing content and structural validity, reliability, and measurement error, alongside conceptual work towards broader interictal burden assessment, are needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420261296323; Clinical trial number: not applicable.
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.