Reporting of research priorities in migraine clinical practice guidelines still need improvement—A methodological analysis
- 1The Second Clinical Medical College, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
- 2The First Clinical Medical College, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
- 3College of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
Abstract
Objectives: To systematically analyze the content and format of research priorities in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for migraine, providing a methodological guidance for future guideline developers and researchers. Methods: This methodological systematic analysis involved searching six databases (Embase, PubMed CNKI, VIP, CBM and Wanfang) and the official websites of 39 authoritative organizations, including headache societies, neurology associations, and guideline development bodies. Extract information such as the name, type, and quantity of research priorities. Two reviewers independently performed data retrieval, screening, and extraction. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the absolute frequencies and proportions of research-focused items. We have registered at INPLASY with the registration number INPLASY2025120098. Results: Out of 96 included CPGs, 248 research priorities were identified. Only half (48, 50%) of the CPGs explicitly reported research priorities, and only 13.5% (13) included a dedicated section. The primary rationale for proposing these priorities was a lack of sufficient evidence (108, 43.5%). The nomenclature for research priorities varies widely, and structured reporting was found to be inadequate. Furthermore, 56% of priorities (139) focused on the effectiveness of interventions, primarily concerning calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (20, 8.1%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (18, 7.3%), and antiepileptic drugs (17, 6.9%). Conclusions: The reporting of research priorities in migraine CPGs—both in content and format—requires significant improvement. Future efforts should prioritize the systematic identification and standardized reporting of research gaps in migraine and other disease areas.
Related
- An Evaluation of the Guidelines for Premature Rupture of Membranes Based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, the Scientific, Transparent, and Applicable Rankings, and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care Methods
- Methodological Adherence, Reporting Completeness, and Risk of Bias in AI-Assisted Systematic Reviews: A Matched Meta-Research Study
- A non-destructive methodological framework for modernizing legacy clinical reporting systems for AI-driven pharmacoinformatics: a SAS case study
- Methodological quality and clinical applicability of long COVID guidelines and scientific statements: a systematic review using AGREE II and AGREE-REX
- Improving Access to Clinical Guidelines Through a Centralised Digital Platform in an NHS Setting: A Quality Improvement Study
BibTeX
@article{yin2026reporting,
title = {{Reporting of research priorities in migraine clinical practice guidelines still need improvement—A methodological analysis}},
author = {Xuejian Yin and Yingdi Liao and Zhuo Ye and Yiyun Zhao and Shiyu An and Riai Tang and Qinyan Li and Shuting Yang and Yuze Sun and Yicheng Gao and Kai Yuan},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0361302},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361302},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Reporting of research priorities in migraine clinical practice guidelines still need improvement—A methodological analysis
AU - Xuejian Yin
AU - Yingdi Liao
AU - Zhuo Ye
AU - Yiyun Zhao
AU - Shiyu An
AU - Riai Tang
AU - Qinyan Li
AU - Shuting Yang
AU - Yuze Sun
AU - Yicheng Gao
AU - Kai Yuan
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0361302
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361302
AB - Objectives: To systematically analyze the content and format of research priorities in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for migraine, providing a methodological guidance for future guideline developers and researchers. Methods: This methodological systematic analysis involved searching six databases (Embase, PubMed CNKI, VIP, CBM and Wanfang) and the official websites of 39 authoritative organizations, including headache societies, neurology associations, and guideline development bodies. Extract information such as the name, type, and quantity of research priorities. Two reviewers independently performed data retrieval, screening, and extraction. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the absolute frequencies and proportions of research-focused items. We have registered at INPLASY with the registration number INPLASY2025120098. Results: Out of 96 included CPGs, 248 research priorities were identified. Only half (48, 50%) of the CPGs explicitly reported research priorities, and only 13.5% (13) included a dedicated section. The primary rationale for proposing these priorities was a lack of sufficient evidence (108, 43.5%). The nomenclature for research priorities varies widely, and structured reporting was found to be inadequate. Furthermore, 56% of priorities (139) focused on the effectiveness of interventions, primarily concerning calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (20, 8.1%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (18, 7.3%), and antiepileptic drugs (17, 6.9%). Conclusions: The reporting of research priorities in migraine CPGs—both in content and format—requires significant improvement. Future efforts should prioritize the systematic identification and standardized reporting of research gaps in migraine and other disease areas.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -