Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSteiner, Timothy J.
dc.contributor.authorStovner, Lars Jacob
dc.contributor.authorAl Jumah, Mohammed A
dc.contributor.authorBirbeck, Gretchen
dc.contributor.authorGururaj, Gopalkrishna
dc.contributor.authorJensen, Rigmor
dc.contributor.authorKatsarava, Zaza
dc.contributor.authorQueiroz, Luiz Paulo
dc.contributor.authorScher, AI
dc.contributor.authorTekle-Haimanot, Redda
dc.contributor.authorWang, Shuu-Jiun
dc.contributor.authorMartelletti, Paolo
dc.contributor.authorDua, Tarun
dc.contributor.authorChatterji, Somnath
dc.identifier.citationThe Journal of Headache and Pain. 2013, 14 (87), .nb_NO
dc.description.abstractPopulation-based studies of headache disorders are important. They inform needs assessment and underpin service policy for a set of disorders that are a public-health priority. On the one hand, our knowledge of the global burden of headache is incomplete, with major geographical gaps; on the other, methodological differences and variable quality are notable among published studies of headache prevalence, burden and cost. The purpose here was to start the process of developing standardized and better methodology in these studies. An expert consensus group was assembled to identify the key methodological issues, and areas where studies might fail. Members had competence and practical experience in headache epidemiology or epidemiology in general, and were drawn from all WHO world regions. We reviewed the relevant literature, and supplemented the knowledge gathered from this exercise with experience gained from recent Global Campaign population-based studies, not all yet published. We extracted methodological themes and identified issues within them that were of key importance. We found wide variations in methodology. The themes within which methodological shortcomings had adverse impact on quality were the following: study design; selection and/or definition of population of interest; sampling and bias avoidance; sample size estimation; access to selected subjects (managing and reporting non-participation); case definition (including diagnosis and timeframe); case ascertainment (including diagnostic validation of questionnaires); burden estimation; reporting (methods and results). These are discussed.nb_NO
dc.publisherBMC (part of Springer Nature)nb_NO
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.titleImproving quality in population surveys of headache prevalence, burden and cost: key methodological considerationsnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.source.journalThe Journal of Headache and Painnb_NO
dc.description.localcode© 2013 Steiner et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.nb_NO
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for nevromedisin og bevegelsesvitenskap

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal