Reporting of research priorities in migraine clinical practice guidelines still need improvement—A methodological analysis

Objectives To systematically analyze the content and format of research priorities in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for migraine, providing a methodological guidance for future guideline developers and researchers. Methods This methodological systematic analysis involved searching six databases (Embase, PubMed CNKI, VIP, CBM and Wanfang) and the official websites of 39 authoritative organizations, including headache societies, neurology associations, and guideline development bodies. Extract information such as the name, type, and quantity of research priorities. Two reviewers independently performed data retrieval, screening, and extraction. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the absolute frequencies and proportions of research-focused items. We have registered at INPLASY with the registration number INPLASY2025120098. Results Out of 96 included CPGs, 248 research priorities were identified. Only half (48, 50%) of the CPGs explicitly reported research priorities, and only 13.5% (13) included a dedicated section. The primary rationale for proposing these priorities was a lack of sufficient evidence (108, 43.5%). The nomenclature for research priorities varies widely, and structured reporting was found to be inadequate. Furthermore, 56% of priorities (139) focused on the effectiveness of interventions, primarily concerning calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (20, 8.1%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (18, 7.3%), and antiepileptic drugs (17, 6.9%). Conclusions The reporting of research priorities in migraine CPGs—both in content and format—requires significant improvement. Future efforts should prioritize the systematic identification and standardized reporting of research gaps in migraine and other disease areas.