Talk:Prevention of migraine attacks

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Many violations of MEDRS

There are far too many entries using primary sources, and even speculative and inconclusive studies. This is awful. The article needs to be cleaned up and follow our WP:MEDRS guidelines. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree. Have at it :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a go at it, and doing it one edit at a time so any reverts can be individual. Such reverts should be discussed here first. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've pared it down, but there's probably much more. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the people editing/writing articles like this actually qualified doctors or just med students that think they know something, sure they can link to research to state their case, but that doesn't help the reader. Trumpy (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headache calendar

I have moved this from the lead to here, since it wasn't discussed in the body at all. Maybe it has potential for reinclusion, but not in the lead:

Maintaining a headache calendar is useful for patients who need to be on preventative medications. There are paper diaries^[1] and electronic diaries such as the iPhone apps iHeadache^[2] and Headache Diary,^[3] BlackBerry iHeadache,^[2] and android app My Migraine Log.^[4]

Brangifer (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Treatment Section

The material on diet can be expanded upon. I have three paragraphs of possible content on my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NoKap64/sandbox. Please let me know of any feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoKap64 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture Section

It can not be said that acupuncture is effective for migraine, then followed by the data that both 'true' and 'sham' acupuncture are equally effective. 'Sham' acupuncture is not acupuncture at all....it is the 'placebo' for acupuncture. If the 'real' treatment and the placebo have the same effect, then the treatment is shown to be ineffective.

This section needs to be changed to reflect this reality.

Any support for this from other editors? I don't want to get in some sort of editing war with the Acupuncture Gatekeepers Assoc.

KipHansen (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion may indeed be considered valid by some editors; I personally think that there are large holes in your logic. However, the bottom line is that it does not matter what you or I believe, the section you are commenting on is a direct summary of the conclusions of the highest quality systematic reviews available (at least according to wikipedia) and so to alter the text to suit our own understanding would violate WP:OR.Puhlaa (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty basic. A procedure that does not differ in effect from the sham procedure is not an effective treatment. You cannot argue that it works because of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is due to patient belief that is modified by the information provided by the caregiver and thus fundamentally unrelated to the procedure itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.104.145 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change the title of the article

Hi @Doc James

I think this article should be moved to either “Prevention of migraine” or “Prevention of migraine attacks”. In general, I see that the word “migraines” is used quite often on Wikipedia, like in the general migraine article, where it’s used 32 times. I also read in the guidelines that what patients group prefer being used (like person-first language) is important. I will link to CHAMP and Migraine Australia as references to why we should remove the word “migraines” from Wikipedia in general, but in short, like we never say “asthmas” or “epilepsies”, “migraines” shouldn’t be used either. All of them are chronic diseases that affect people also when they don’t have an attack (like having to take preventative medicines or avoiding triggers), and the language we use around migraine now, marginalises that.

Rogalendingen (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to see this page WP:MOVEd to Prevention of migraine attacks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Date - CGRP and Gepants

A lot has changed in the last five years or so. This article is really out of date. It has no mention of CGRP biology or gepants, for example. Jaredroach (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaredroach, please Wikipedia:Be bold in updating this article. Also, please check Migraine (which should perhaps be moved to Migraine disorder?) and Migraine treatment, which are probably also missing similar information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] r diaries

[iheadacheapp-2] Headache

[3] Headache Diary

[4] My Migraine Log

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]