If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||||||
  CephalalgiaVolume 28 Issue 6, Pages 585 - 597 Published Online: 1 May 2008 © 2009 International Headache Society Published on behalf of the International Headache Society
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 279K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  REVIEW Anticonvulsants in migraine prophylaxis: a Cochrane review Copyright © 2008 International Headache Society KEYWORDS Migraine • prophylaxis • preventive • anticonvulsants • review Mulleners WM & Chronicle EP. Anticonvulsants in migraine prophylaxis: a Cochrane review. Cephalalgia 2008; 585–597. London. ISSN 0333-1024 ABSTRACTSeveral trials have asserted that some anticonvulsant drugs seem to be useful for the prophylaxis of migraine, but systematic reviews are sparse. We independently searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 2005, as well as Headache and Cephalalgia through April 2006, for prospective, controlled trials of anticonvulsant drugs. Data were calculated and pooled across studies and expressed as standardized mean differences, odds ratios and numbers-needed-to-treat. Anticonvulsants, considered as a class, reduce migraine frequency by about 1.3 attacks per 28 days compared with placebo, and more than double the number of patients for whom migraine frequency is reduced by ≥ 50% relative to placebo. Sodium valproate/divalproex sodium and topiramate were better than placebo, whereas acetazolamide, clonazepam, lamotrigine and vigabatrin were not; gabapentin, in particular, needs further evaluation. Trials designed with sufficient power to compare different drugs are also necessary. Received 28 October 2007, accepted 28 November 2007 | 
|
