To date, no studies have investigated the predictive validity of variables from the initial examination to identify patients with tension-type headache pain who are likely to benefit from muscle trigger point (TrP) therapy. The purpose of this study was to develop a preliminary clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) patients who are likely to experience a successful response from TrP therapy. Consecutive patients with CTTH underwent a standardized examination and then received six sessions of TrP therapy over 3 weeks (two sessions per week). They were classified as having experienced a successful outcome at short-term (1 week after discharge) and 1-month follow-up based on a 50% reduction on at least one headache parameter (intensity, frequency or duration) and self-report perceived recovery. Potential predictor variables were entered into a stepwise logistic regression model to determine the most accurate set of variables for identifying treatment success. Data from 35 patients were included, of which 19 (55%) experienced a successful outcome. A CPR with four variables for short-term (headache duration < 8.5 h/day, headache frequency < 5.5 days/week, bodily pain < 47 and vitality < 47.5) and a CPR with two variables for 1-month (headache frequency < 5.5 days/week and bodily pain < 47) follow-up were identified. At short-term follow-up, if three of four variables [positive likelihood ratio (LR) 3.4] were present, the chance of experiencing a successful outcome improved from 54% to 80%, and if all the variables (positive LR 5.9) were present, the probability of success was 87.4%. At 1-month follow-up, if one of two variables (positive LR 2.2) was present, the probability of success increased from 54% to 72%, and if both variables (positive LR 4.6) were present, the probability of success was 84.4%. The present CPR provides the potential to identify CTTH patients who are likely to experience short-term and 1-month follow-up success with a muscle TrP therapy approach. Future studies are necessary to validate the CPR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fernández‐de‐las‐Peñas et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: