Mindfulness-based stress reduction for treating chronic headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy are frequently used for pain-related conditions, but their effects on headache remain uncertain. This review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy in reducing the symptoms of chr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cephalalgia 2019-04, Vol.39 (4), p.544-555
Main Authors: Anheyer, Dennis, Leach, Matthew J, Klose, Petra, Dobos, Gustav, Cramer, Holger
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy are frequently used for pain-related conditions, but their effects on headache remain uncertain. This review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy in reducing the symptoms of chronic headache. Data sources and study selection MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and PsychINFO were searched to 16 June 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy with usual care or active comparators for migraine and/or tension-type headache, which assessed headache frequency, duration or intensity as a primary outcome, were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool. Results Five randomized controlled trials (two on tension-type headache; one on migraine; two with mixed samples) with a total of 185 participants were included. Compared to usual care, mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy did not improve headache frequency (three randomized controlled trials; standardized mean difference = 0.00; 95% confidence interval = −0.33,0.32) or headache duration (three randomized controlled trials; standardized mean difference = −0.08; 95% confidence interval = −1.03,0.87). Similarly, no significant difference between groups was found for pain intensity (five randomized controlled trials; standardized mean difference = −0.78; 95% confidence interval = −1.72,0.16). Conclusions Due to the low number, small scale and often high or unclear risk of bias of included randomized controlled trials, the results are imprecise; this may be consistent with either an important or negligible effect. Therefore, more rigorous trials with larger sample sizes are needed.
ISSN:0333-1024
1468-2982
DOI:10.1177/0333102418781795