Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Estimates of proportions of people with migraine who report premonitory symptoms vary greatly among previous studies. Our aims were to establish the proportion of patients reporting premonitory symptoms and its dependency on the enquiry method. Additionally, we investigated the impact of premonitory symptoms on disease burden using Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), whilst investigating how various clinical factors influenced the likelihood of reporting premonitory symptoms.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, premonitory symptoms were assessed among 632 patients with migraine. Unprompted enquiry was used first, followed by a list of 17 items (prompted). Additionally, we obtained clinical characteristics through a semi-structured interview.
RESULTS: Prompted enquiry resulted in a greater proportion reporting premonitory symptoms than unprompted (69.9% vs. 43.0%; p < 0.001) and with higher symptom counts (medians 2, interquartile range = 0-6 vs. 1, interquartile range = 0-1; p < 0.001). The number of symptoms correlated weakly with HIT-6 (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001) and WHODAS scores (ρ = 0.09; p = 0.041). Reporting postdromal symptoms or triggers increased the probability of reporting premonitory symptoms, whereas monthly migraine days decreased it.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a standardized and optimized method for assessing premonitory symptoms is necessary to estimate their prevalence and to understand whether and how they contribute to disease burden.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, premonitory symptoms were assessed among 632 patients with migraine. Unprompted enquiry was used first, followed by a list of 17 items (prompted). Additionally, we obtained clinical characteristics through a semi-structured interview.
RESULTS: Prompted enquiry resulted in a greater proportion reporting premonitory symptoms than unprompted (69.9% vs. 43.0%; p < 0.001) and with higher symptom counts (medians 2, interquartile range = 0-6 vs. 1, interquartile range = 0-1; p < 0.001). The number of symptoms correlated weakly with HIT-6 (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001) and WHODAS scores (ρ = 0.09; p = 0.041). Reporting postdromal symptoms or triggers increased the probability of reporting premonitory symptoms, whereas monthly migraine days decreased it.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a standardized and optimized method for assessing premonitory symptoms is necessary to estimate their prevalence and to understand whether and how they contribute to disease burden.
摘要：
背景：报告先兆症状的偏头痛患者的估计比例在以前的研究中差异很大。我们的目的是确定报告先兆症状的患者比例及其对询问方法的依赖性。此外,我们使用头痛影响测试（HIT-6）调查了先兆症状对疾病负担的影响，偏头痛残疾评估（MIDAS）和世界卫生组织残疾评估2.0（WHODAS2.0）同时调查各种临床因素如何影响报告先兆症状的可能性。
方法：在一项横断面研究中，对632例偏头痛患者的先兆症状进行了评估.首先使用了未经提示的询问，后跟17个项目的列表（提示）。此外,我们通过半结构化访谈获得了临床特征.
结果：提示询问导致报告先兆症状的比例高于未提示（69.9％vs.43.0%；p<0.001），症状计数较高（中位数2，四分位数范围=0-6vs.1，四分位数间距=0-1；p<0.001）。症状数量与HIT-6（ρ=0.14；p<0.001）和WHODAS评分（ρ=0.09；p=0.041）弱相关。报告后症状或触发因素增加了报告先兆症状的可能性，而每月偏头痛天数减少。
结论：使用标准化和优化的方法评估先兆症状对于估计其患病率和了解它们是否以及如何影响疾病负担是必要的。
方法：在一项横断面研究中，对632例偏头痛患者的先兆症状进行了评估.首先使用了未经提示的询问，后跟17个项目的列表（提示）。此外,我们通过半结构化访谈获得了临床特征.
结果：提示询问导致报告先兆症状的比例高于未提示（69.9％vs.43.0%；p<0.001），症状计数较高（中位数2，四分位数范围=0-6vs.1，四分位数间距=0-1；p<0.001）。症状数量与HIT-6（ρ=0.14；p<0.001）和WHODAS评分（ρ=0.09；p=0.041）弱相关。报告后症状或触发因素增加了报告先兆症状的可能性，而每月偏头痛天数减少。
结论：使用标准化和优化的方法评估先兆症状对于估计其患病率和了解它们是否以及如何影响疾病负担是必要的。
