↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment and prevention of migraine and cluster headache

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment and prevention of migraine and cluster headache
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005219.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael H Bennett, Christopher French, Alexander Schnabel, Jason Wasiak, Peter Kranke, Stephanie Weibel

Abstract

Migraine and cluster headaches are severe and disabling. Migraine affects up to 18% of women, while cluster headaches are much less common (0.2% of the population). A number of acute and prophylactic therapies are available. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is the therapeutic administration of 100% oxygen at environmental pressures greater than one atmosphere, while normobaric oxygen therapy (NBOT) is oxygen administered at one atmosphere. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2008 under the title 'Normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen for migraine and cluster headache'. To examine the efficacy and safety of normobaric oxygen therapy (NBOT) and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment and prevention of migraine and cluster headache. We updated searches of the following databases up to 15 June 2015: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. For the original review we searched the following databases up to May 2008: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, DORCTIHM, and reference lists from relevant articles. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted researchers to identify trials. Randomised controlled trials comparing HBOT or NBOT with one another, other active therapies, placebo (sham) interventions, or no treatment in participants with migraine or cluster headache. Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. In this update, we included 11 trials with 209 participants. Five trials (103 participants) compared HBOT versus sham therapy for acute migraine, three trials compared NBOT to sham therapy or ergotamine tartrate for cluster headache (145 participants), two trials evaluated HBOT for cluster headache (29 participants), and one trial (56 participants) compared NBOT to sham for a mixed group of headache. The risk of bias varied considerably across these trials but in general trial quality was poor to moderate. One trial may not have been truly randomised and two included studies were reported as abstracts only. Seven trials did not indicate allocation concealment or randomisation method. Notably, 10 of the 11 trials used a sham comparator therapy and masked the outcome assessor to allocation.We pooled data from three trials, which suggested that HBOT was effective in relieving migraine headaches compared to sham therapy (risk ratio (RR) 6.21, 95% CI 2.41 to 16.00; 58 participants, three trials). The quality of evidence was low, having been downgraded for small crossover studies with incomplete reporting. There was no evidence that HBOT could prevent migraine episodes, reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting, or reduce the requirement for rescue medication. There was no evidence that HBOT was effective for the termination of cluster headache (RR 11.38, 95% CI 0.77 to 167.85; P = 0.08) (one trial), but this trial had low power.NBOT was effective in terminating cluster headache compared to sham in a single small study (RR 7.88, 95% CI 1.13 to 54.66), but not superior to ergotamine administration in another small trial (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.46; P = 0.16). A third trial reported a statistically significant difference in the proportion of attacks successfully treated with oxygen (117 of 150 attacks were successfully treated with NBOT (78%) versus 30 of 148 attacks treated with NBOT (20%)). The proportion of responders was consistent across these three trials, and suggested more than 75% of headaches were likely to respond to NBOT.No serious adverse events during HBOT or NBOT were reported. Since the last version of this review, two new included studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions. There was some evidence that HBOT was effective for the termination of acute migraine in an unselected population, and some evidence that NBOT was similarly effective in cluster headache. Given the cost and poor availability of HBOT, more research should be done on patients unresponsive to standard therapy. NBOT is cheap, safe, and easy to apply, so will probably continue to be used despite the limited evidence in this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 161 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Student > Master 23 14%
Researcher 20 12%
Other 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 39 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 15%
Neuroscience 9 5%
Psychology 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 46 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2019.
All research outputs
#469,784
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,089
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,208
of 375,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 375,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.