Skip to main content
. 2025 May 1;25(2):1–177.

Table A5:

GRADE Evidence Profile for the Comparison of nVNS and Control, Acute Treatment, Migraine

Number of studies (design) Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias Upgrade considerations Quality
Pain relief: response
1 (RCT) No serious limitationsa No serious limitationsb No serious limitations Serious limitations (-1)c Undetected None ⊕⊕⊕ Moderate
Pain relief: response in 50% or more of attacks
1 (RCT) Serious limitations (-1)a No serious limitationsb No serious limitations Serious limitations (-1)d Undetected None ⊕⊕ Low
Pain relief: sustained treatment response
1 (RCT) Serious limitations (-1)a No serious limitationsb No serious limitations Serious limitations (-1)e Undetected None ⊕⊕ Low
Pain freedom
1 (RCT) No serious limitationsa No serious limitationsb No serious limitations Serious limitations (-1)f Undetected None ⊕⊕⊕ Moderate
Pain freedom in 50% or more of attacks
1 (RCT) Very serious limitations (-2)a No serious limitationsb No serious limitations Serious limitations (-1)g Undetected None ⊕ Very low
Sustained pain freedom
1 (RCT) Very serious limitations (-2)a No serious limitationsb No serious limitations Serious limitations (-1)h Undetected None ⊕ Very low
Headache intensity
1 (RCT) Very serious limitations (-2)a No serious limitationsa No serious limitations Serious limitations (-1)i Undetected None ⊕ Very low
Acute medication use
1 (RCT) No serious limitationsa No serious limitationsb Serious limitations (-1)j Serious limitations (-1)k Undetection None ⊕⊕ Low

Abbreviations: GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; nVNS, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

a

See Table A1.

b

Only 1 RCT contributed to the assessment.

c

Small sample size, with a very wide confidence interval ranging from a very small and not clinically meaningful increase (1% absolute risk increase, 3% relative increase) to a very large benefit.

d

Small sample size, with a very wide confidence interval ranging from a very small and not clinically meaningful increase (2% absolute risk increase, 4% relative increase) to a very large benefit.

e

Small sample size with a confidence interval that included a meaningful decrease and an increase in response.

f

Small sample size with a wide confidence interval that crossed no effect in treatment.

g

Small sample size with a very wide confidence interval.

h

Small sample size that crossed no effect in treatment.

i

Small sample size; no variance was provided to appropriately assess imprecision.

j

It was unclear how this was defined, or the measures. Patients were instructed not to take medication for 120 minutes after treatment, and this was unlikely to represent true practice.

k

Small sample size with a confidence interval that crossed no effect (P > .05); insufficient data to assess the degree of variance around the effect estimate.