↓ Skip to main content

Feverfew for preventing migraine

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Feverfew for preventing migraine
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002286.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Wider, Max H Pittler, Edzard Ernst

Abstract

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 'Feverfew for preventing migraine' (2004, Issue 1). Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium L.) extract is a herbal remedy, which has been used for preventing attacks of migraine. To systematically review the evidence from double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of feverfew monopreparations versus placebo for preventing migraine. For this updated version of the review we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED to January 2015. We contacted manufacturers of feverfew and checked the bibliographies of identified articles for further trials. We included randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials assessing the efficacy of feverfew monopreparations for preventing migraine in patients of any age. We included trials using clinical outcome measures, while we excluded trials focusing exclusively on physiological parameters. There were no restrictions regarding the language of publication. We systematically extracted data on patients, interventions, methods, outcome measures, results and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and evaluated methodological quality using the Oxford Quality Scale developed by Jadad and colleagues. Two review authors (BW and MHP for this update, MHP and EE for the original version) independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We resolved disagreements concerning evaluation of individual trials through discussion. We identified one new study for this update, resulting in six trials (561 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Five of the six trials reported on the main outcome, migraine frequency. Although five of the trials were generally of good methodological quality, all studies were either of unclear or high risk of bias with regards to sample size. Pooled analysis of the results was not possible due to the lack of common outcome measures and heterogeneity between studies in terms of participants, interventions and designs.The most recent trial added to this version of the review is rigorous and larger (n = 218), using a stable feverfew extract at a dose determined by a previous dose-finding trial. It reports that feverfew reduced migraine frequency by 1.9 attacks from 4.8 to 2.9 and placebo by 1.3 from to 4.8 to 3.5 per month, resulting in a difference in effect between feverfew and placebo of 0.6 attacks per month. For the secondary outcome measures intensity and duration of migraine attacks, incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting, and global assessment no statistically significant differences were reported. Results of previous trials are not convincing: three trials reporting positive effects of feverfew are all of small sample size (17 to 60 participants), while two rigorous trials (n = 50, 147) did not find significant differences between feverfew and placebo. Only mild and transient adverse events, most commonly gastrointestinal complaints and mouth ulcers, were reported in the included trials. Since the last version of this review, one larger rigorous study has been included, reporting a difference in effect between feverfew and placebo of 0.6 attacks per month. This adds some positive evidence to the mixed and inconclusive findings of the previous review. However, this constitutes low quality evidence, which needs to be confirmed in larger rigorous trials with stable feverfew extracts and clearly defined migraine populations before firm conclusions can be drawn. It appears from the data reviewed that feverfew is not associated with any major safety concerns.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 18%
Student > Master 29 17%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 40 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 43 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 10 March 2021.
All research outputs
#420,649
of 17,405,806 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#936
of 11,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,914
of 235,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,405,806 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 11,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 235,427 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.