Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Mar 15;17(3):e0265137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265137

Migraine patients visiting Chinese medicine hospital: Protocol for a prospective, registry-based, real-world observational cohort study

Shaohua Lyu 1,2,#, Claire Shuiqing Zhang 2,#, Anthony Lin Zhang 2, Jingbo Sun 1, Charlie Changli Xue 1,2,*, Xinfeng Guo 1,*
Editor: Sarah Michiels3
PMCID: PMC8923465  PMID: 35290411

Abstract

Introduction

Migraine is a disabling, recurrent headache disorder with complex comorbidities. Conventional treatments for migraine are unsatisfactory, with side effects and limited effectiveness. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been used as an alternative or complementary treatment option for migraine in China. Currently, the existing evidence of benefit of CHM for migraine has been generated from randomised clinical trials using standardised intervention with a focus on internal validity hence with limited external validity. Moreover, CHM individualised intervention design, patients’ preferences and concerns, and clinicians’ experience are critical to clinical decision making and therapeutic success. This real-world observational study aims to gather practice-based evidence of effects and safety of CHM for migraine in the context of integrating Chinese medicine diagnostic procedures, patients’ preferences and matters relevant to clinical decision making.

Methods and analysis

The study is being undertaken at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (GPHCM) from December 2020 to May 2022. We anticipate that approximately 400 adult migraineurs will be enrolled and observed on their migraine severity, analgesic consumption, quality of life, anxiety, depression and insomnia at baseline and then every four weeks over 12 weeks. Treatments, diagnostic information, and patient-reported most bothersome symptoms will be collected from patient clinical records. Patient’s demographic data, preferences and concerns on CHM treatments will also be gathered at baseline and be analysed. Factors related to clinical outcomes will be explored with multiple correlation and multivariable regression analyses. Effects of CHM will be evaluated using generalised estimated equation, based on clinical outcome data.

Discussion

This study will provide comprehensive evidence of CHM for migraine in the context of evidence-based practice.

Trial registration number

ChiCTR2000041003

Introduction

Migraine is a recurrent, severe and primary headache disorder, manifesting unilaterally, throbbing in nature, and lasting 4 to 72 hours [1]. Migraine presented with a global age-standardised prevalence of 14.4% and was ranked as the second most disabling disease in 2016, with an estimated years of life lived with disability (YLDs) of 45.1 million [2]. In China, the number of migraineurs was estimated to be 132 million, with six million YLDs, in 2017 [2, 3].

According to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) [1], migraine is typically divided into migraine with aura and migraine without aura. Migraine can also be categorised as episodic or chronic, according to its frequency. However, episodic migraine can progress to chronic migraine at an annual rate of 2.5% [4].

Migraine patients are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders including depression and general anxiety disorder [5, 6], as well as sleeping disorders such as insomnia [7]. These comorbidities are more commonly seen in chronic migraine compared with episodic migraine [8], and also in migraine with aura compared with migraine without aura [9, 10]. Furthermore, the comorbidities in episodic migraine indicate a poor prognosis, leading to poorer quality of life and limiting the response to treatments [7, 11], and also increase the risk of progression to chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache [1, 12, 13].

Migraine is usually managed with medications for relieving symptoms in the acute stage, and with prophylactic treatment for reducing the frequency and severity of future attacks. The acute medications include aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, antiemetics, steroids, and triptans. Prophylactic pharmacotherapies include calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, candesartan, pizotifen, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), antiepileptics, Botulinum toxin A and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) [14, 15]. Among them, only tricyclic antidepressants, SSNI and SNRI can be adopted for migraine comorbid with depression [1416]; Botulinum toxin A is suggested for chronic migraine. Medical devices for migraine include occipital nerve block, vagus nerve stimulation, transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation [1416]. However, approximately 30–40% of migraineurs are dissatisfied with current treatments, especially those suffering from chronic migraine [17, 18] and migraine with comorbidities [1923], citing insufficient treatment effects, low tolerability, and unbearable side effects [24].

Acknowledging the above-mentioned limitations, there is an urgent need to identify alternative or complementary therapies to assist current conventional managements. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), which is often prescribed to migraine patients in China [25], has gained clinical research evidence as an effective alternative or complementary therapy for migraine in recent years. However, most of the existing evidence has been generated from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [2630] and RCT-based systematic reviews [3134]. Under controlled settings, RCTs usually apply strict selection criteria and provide unified treatments to all participants [35]. Such design may not reflect the complexity of migraine and its comorbidities [36], nor reflect the real-world practice of CHM which is commonly tailored according to individual’s syndrome differentiation [37]. Hence, the research evidence obtained from previous explanatory RCTs and systematic reviews need to be supplemented with more real-world evidence.

To address this research gap, observational studies, which reflect real-world settings and evaluate both standardised outcomes and patient-reported most bothersome symptoms (MBS), can be a pragmatic approach to assess the effects and safety profiles of CHM for migraine and its comorbidities, and provide valuable information for decision making in CHM clinical practice. In line with this, we designed this prospective, registry-based, real-world observational cohort study.

Objectives

This observational study aims to 1) evaluate the effects and safety of individualised CHM for adult migraine in a real-world setting; 2) identify factors that contribute to clinical outcomes of CHM for migraine; 3) summarise the common patterns of CHM for migraine and its comorbidities; and 4) report on the characteristics of migraine patients who seek CHM management, including their preferences and concerns associated with CHM therapies for their migraine.

Methods

Study design

This prospective, registry-based, observational cohort study is being undertaken at the Headache Clinics at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (GPHCM) in southern China [38]. Participant recruitment commenced in December 2020 and is targeted to end in May 2022. Based on consecutive sampling, an estimated number of 400 eligible migraineurs will be recruited.

All participants will be required to complete case report forms (CRFs) every four weeks over a period of 12 weeks. Following the same period intervals, data regarding participants’ detailed treatment plan, including medications, administrative methods, courses, dosage and forms of CHM, which have been determined by their headache specialists, will also be collected from their clinical records. Data will be collected for the entire study duration, even in cases where treatments have been discontinued before the end of the observation period.

The study (version 1.0) was approved by the ethics committee of GPHCM (ZE2020-243-01) and registered with the Human Research Ethics Committee of RMIT University (24235). This study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Guidelines for Medical Research on Humans, and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The protocol has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2000041003). The reporting of this study will abide by the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement for cohort studies [39].

Eligibility criteria

Participants will be eligible for registration if they meet the following criteria:

a). diagnosed with migraine according to the ICHD-3 (1); b). first time seeking treatment for migraine in GPHCM; c). able to provide written informed consent; d). aged of 18 years old or above; and e). not concurrently participating in other interventional trials.

Participants will be excluded for registration and participation if they have any of the following conditions: a). diagnosed with diseases which could induce migraine-like headache such as glaucoma, brain tumour, brain injury; b). diagnosis of migraine being corrected to secondary headaches during the observation period; c). severe impairment of speech, vision, memory or cognition that affects communication and ability to complete questionnaires; d). pregnant or breastfeeding; or e). highly dependent on medical care.

Participants will be marked as drop-outs if they request to withdraw from the observation for any reason.

Interventions

Participants will receive individually tailored treatment determined by their headache specialist in the GPHCM; these include CHM in the form of herbal decoction, granules or patented pill, alone or in combination with western medicine or other treatment procedures such as acupuncture. The treatment plan will be based on discussion between individual participants and their headache specialist, with no limitations or interference set by this study.

Recruitment

Recruitment posters have been displayed in the waiting room of the Headache Clinics of GPHCM, and headache specialists received training relating to this study have been given screening forms. Potential participants, who have been pre-screened by the headache specialists for eligibility, will be guided to a private consultation room where the researcher or the independent research assistant will provide a full explanation of the study prior to the process of written informed consent. Refusal of participation will not affect the degree of medical care provided.

Data collection

The study will employ a structured CRF (S1 File), which has been specifically designed for this study, including demographic information, symptoms, treatment details, relevant validated questionnaires, participants’ feedback and adverse events (AEs). Face-to-face data collection will be conducted at baseline, while evaluations at other timepoints can be completed using online CRFs or hard copy CRFs, according to participants’ preference. Online data collection will be conducted via the online survey service provider Wenjuan.com (www.wenjuan.com). Participants will be required to take migraine diary and record details of each migraine attack (S2 File). Data of patient-reported MBS, treatments, examinations and diagnostic information will also be extracted from the clinical records by the researcher.

The data to be collected from CRF is outlined below:

Demographic and general information. Demographic information including age, gender, general information such as family history, migraine subtypes and other medical histories will be collected upon participant enrolment.

Patients’ preferences and concerns. Patients’ preference and concerns regarding CHM treatment for migraine will be collected upon participants’ enrolment.

Migraine frequency. Defined as the number of migraine attacks in four weeks. An attack that is interrupted or rescued by sleep or medications but relapses within 48 hours will be considered as one migraine attack; attacks that are separated by an entire 24-hour period will be considered as two distinct attacks [40]. A 50% reduction in migraine frequency within a evaluation interval will be defined as response.

Migraine days. Defined as the number of days with migraine headache within each evaluation interval (four weeks) [41].

Migraine duration. Defined as the average duration of each migraine attack.

Pain intensity. Evaluated via numeric rating scale (NRS), which is an 11-points scale with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating the most severe pain. This outcome will provide data regarding the maximal pain intensity prior to taking abortive medication, as well as the average pain intensity across each observational intervals.

Analgesic consumption. Data collected under this category include the type, amount and frequency of acute medication, participants’ behaviour when purchasing and using analgesics. The quantity of medications will be standardised using medication quantification scales [42], where available.

Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ). A 14-item patient-reporting outcome instrument that measures the impact of migraine on a patient’s health-related quality of life. The domains cover role function-restrictive, role function-preventive and emotional function [43].

Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) Scale. An efficient, practical, patient-reporting scale, which is commonly used for rapid screening and evaluating the presence and severity of anxiety disorder, especially in outpatient settings [44].

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). A self-administrative scale to screen, diagnose, monitor and measure the severity of depression [45].

Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). A brief self-reporting instrument measuring the patients’ perception of both nocturnal and diurnal symptoms of insomnia [46, 47].

Satisfaction of treatment. Evaluated using 5-point Likert scale [48] at each observational timepoint.

AEs. Participants will be asked to report any AEs possibly related to prescribed treatments, analgesics or concomitant medications, such as diarrhea, dental ulcer, insomnia in CRFs at observational visits.

During data collection, the researcher will report patients’ scores of GAD-7, PHQ-9 and relevant AEs to the corresponding clinicians to assist in clinical management.

Migraine diary is a tool for patients to record information of migraine attacks and monitor the frequency, duration, severity, associated symptoms and medication consumption of migraine attacks over time. Data collected from migraine diary will be cross-checked with CRFs as a supplementary method to ensure data accuracy.

Clinical records are referred to collect the following information:

Treatments, examinations and diagnoses. Treatment prescriptions and courses, results of laboratory and medical imaging examinations, Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis, and western medical diagnoses will be obtained from clinical records.

Patient-reported MBS. Any other symptoms such as dry mouth, constipation, abdominal distention, which have been reported by participants, will be extracted from clinical records.

Fig 1 provides a summary of data collection during each timepoint of this study. Reminders will be sent via Wechat or via mobile phone messaging system to participants prior to each observational timepoint to improve compliance.

Fig 1. SPIRIT schedule of enrolment and assessments.

Fig 1

AEs: Adverse Events, GAD-7: Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale, ISI: Insomnia Severity Index Scale, MSQ: Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9, T0: Timepoint 0, T1: Timepoint 1, T2: Timepoint 2, T3: Timepoint 3.

Estimated number of patients

This study aims to explore the information related to migraine management based on a registry of the patient cohort from GPHCM available in a specific time range, sample size calculation is not required since there are no pre-determined hypotheses to be tested [49]. This study adopts the consecutive sampling method for recruitment, which is recommended to reduce selection bias in non-randomised studies [49]. The estimated number of participants is approximately 400, based on the average annually outpatient visit numbers at the headache clinic of GPHCM between July 2018 and July 2020.

Exposures and confounders

In this real-world observational study, CHM treatment is defined as the main exposure. Participants being treated with CHM solely and those treated with a combination of conventional prophylactic treatment and CHM will be considered as two subcohorts for analyses.

Measured confounders in this study include comorbidities of migraine (depression, anxiety and insomnia, evaluated by PHQ-9, GAD-7, and ISI, respectively), gender, baseline severity of migraine (duration, average frequency, average pain NRS and analgesics consumption at entrance), association with the menstrual cycle (pure menstrual migraine vs menstrually related migraine vs non-menstrual migraine), and aura (migraine with aura vs migraine without aura).

Data management

Data quality control

Random data check will be conducted during data extraction and data entry to alert on erroneous, missing or out-of-range values and logical inconsistencies. Prompt verification and remedial action will be carried out, where necessary.

Data storage and process

The original CRFs will be stored in a locked cabinet for at least five years after the completion of the study. All data will be entered into a Microsoft Excel dataset. Electronic dataset will be stored in a password-protected computer drive. Only the research team members and the ethics committee members will have access to the data.

Analytical methods

Data analysis will be conducted in relation to the study objectives:

  1. To summarise participants’ demographic characteristics, preferences and concerns, descriptive analyses will be conducted. Such descriptive analyses will be conducted in subcohorts of patients with various levels of predefined exposures, and compared analysis will be conducted, if appropriate. Categorical variables, including gender and satisfaction degree, will be presented using frequencies and percentages; quantitative variables such as disease duration and migraine frequency will be described with mean values and standard deviation.

  2. To display the utilisation pattern of CHM for migraine and to summarise patient-reported MBS, cluster analyses and machine learning algorithms such as Apriori Algorithm [50] will be performed. Apriori Algorithm is a common method to identify core herb pairs and herb combinations [5153]. Multiple correlation analysis and multivariable regression analysis will be conducted to explore factors related to clinical outcomes, where possible.

  3. To evaluate the effects of CHM for adult migraine, generalised estimated equation will be adopted to compare longitudinal differences of clinical outcomes. Disease risk score and instrumental variables will be introduced to control measured and unmeasured confounders, respectively. Missing data will be handled using R-MICE package for the quantitative outcome measures at each evaluation timepoint.

Ethics considerations

Participants may experience minimal discomfort and inconvenience during the observation. The researcher will communicate with participants professionally to minimise any discomfort associated with their participation in the study. The researcher will also provide detailed answers to any questions raised by the participants related to their migraine and treatments throughout the study. No extra financial, physical nor social demand are anticipated in this study; no payments will be provided to participants. Risk of data leaks is prevented by the well-established data storage and management plan as approved by the Ethics Committee.

Though participants will not receive financial benefits for their participation in this study, they will get a comprehensive assessment of migraine and comorbidities, as well as a monthly summary of and report on their migraine condition. It is expected that the findings of this study will provide pragmatic evidence for future clinical practice for migraine in a real-world setting.

Discussion

Evidence-based practice has been increasingly used in healthcare [54]. It expects shared clinical decision making that integrates the best available, current, valid and relevant evidence [55]. This real-world observational study will take into consideration of the three vital elements [56] of evidence-based practice [55], namely, CHM utilisation patterns derived from clinical experts’ experience, patients’ preferences and concerns, and current clinical evidence. Other relevant findings such as patients’ quality of life, medication consumptions, sleep disturbances, will also be documented in this study. Hence, this study will provide comprehensive evidence of CHM for migraine in the context of evidence-based practice.

Although RCT evidence is the gold standard to assess the efficacy and safety of CHM, RCT data commonly has poor external validity, thus with limited generalisability in real-world practice. In addition to current RCT findings, this study will provide an extension of evidence from registry studies in clinical practice [36]. To fully capture the benefits of individualised interventions, patient-reported outcomes are recommended to be included along with standardised outcome measures [36]. Compared with RCT evidence, this real-world study may involve a broad range of participants, including chronic migraine with medication overuse, and migraine with psychiatric comorbidities. Findings from this study will fill in data gaps of the effects of CHM for these subtypes of migraine patients. In addition, this observational study innovatively applies patient-reported MBS in addition to common migraine outcomes to provide more comprehensive clinical assessments.

Previously, Chinese medicine practitioners’ experience of using CHM for migraine were reported in retrospective studies based on clinical records and published data [5761]. It should be noted that, retrospective studies often introduce bias or confounding factors which may impact on the interpretation of their results [62]. Unlike previous studies, this prospective study will provide more reliable and relevant data based on structured outcome measures and regular data collection throughout the observational period.

Common limitations of registry-based cohort studies and real-world studies are inevitable and cannot be completely excluded in this research. These include the lack of run-in period and randomisation, the subsequent recall bias [63] and various confounders [64]. Disease risk score and instrumental variables could be applied to deal with the confounders, and caution should be paid during the interpretation of these findings. Finally, this study is designed as a single-centre cohort, and the geographic limitation should be noted.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Case report forms.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Migraine diary.

(DOCX)

S3 File

(DOCX)

S4 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express sincere thanks to the research assistant (Zhenhui Mao), all participants and healthcare professionals involved in the study.

Abbreviation list

AE

Adverse event

CGRP

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide

CHM

Chinese herbal medicine

CRF

Case report form

GAD-7

Generalised anxiety disorder 7-item scale

GPHCM

Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine

ICHD-3

International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd version

ISI

Insomnia severity index scale

MBS

Most bothersome symptoms

MSQ

Migraine specific quality of life questionnaire

NRS

Numeric rating scale

PHQ-9

Patient health questionnaire-9

RCT

Randomised controlled trial

SNRI

Serotonin Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors

SSRI

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

YLD

Years of life lived with disability

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine “Double First-Class” and High-level University Discipline Collaborative Innovation Team in the form of a grant to JBS (No.2021xk84). The study was also funded by China-Australia International Research Centre for Chinese Medicine (CAIRCCM)-a joint initiative of RMIT University, Australia and the Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, China in the form of a grant to XFG. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. 2018; Jan;38(1):1–211. doi: 10.1177/0333102417738202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Global, regional, and national burden of migraine and tension-type headache, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Neurology. 2018;17(11):954–76. Epub 2018/10/26. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30322-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6191530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yao C, Wang Y, Wang L, Liu Y, Liu J, Qi J, et al. Burden of headache disorders in China, 1990–2017: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):102. Epub 2019/11/09. doi: 10.1186/s10194-019-1048-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6836347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bigal ME, Serrano D, Buse D, Scher A, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. Acute Migraine Medications and Evolution From Episodic to Chronic Migraine: A Longitudinal Population-Based Study. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain. 2008;48(8):1157–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01217.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yang Y, Ligthart L, Terwindt GM, Boomsma DI, Rodriguez-Acevedo AJ, Nyholt DR. Genetic epidemiology of migraine and depression. Cephalalgia: an international journal of headache. 2016;36(7):679–91. Epub 2016/03/12. doi: 10.1177/0333102416638520 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Amoozegar F. Depression comorbidity in migraine. International review of psychiatry (Abingdon, England). 2017;29(5):504–15. Epub 2017/07/07. doi: 10.1080/09540261.2017.1326882 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rains JC. Sleep and Migraine: Assessment and Treatment of Comorbid Sleep Disorders. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain. 2018;58(7):1074–91. doi: 10.1111/head.13357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Adams AM, Lipton RB, Martin VT, Reed ML, Fanning KM, Buse DC, et al. The Relationship between Pain, Psychiatric, and Endocrine/Neurological Comorbidities of Migraine: Results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study (P3.124). Neurology. 2018;90(15 Supplement):P3.124. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Khattri JB, Subedi A. Psychiatric Comorbidities in Patients with Migraine in a Tertiary Hospital. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2020;18(1):82–7. Epub 2020/04/27. doi: 10.33314/jnhrc.v18i1.2202 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Oedegaard K, Neckelmann D, Mykletun A, Dahl A, Zwart J, Hagen K, et al. Migraine with and without aura: association with depression and anxiety disorder in a population-based study. The HUNT Study. Cephalalgia: an international journal of headache. 2006;26(1):1–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2005.00974.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Probyn K, Bowers H, Caldwell F, Mistry D, Underwood M, Matharu M, et al. Prognostic factors for chronic headache: A systematic review. Neurology. 2017;89(3):291–301. Epub 2017/06/16. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004112 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5513814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Diener HC, Holle D, Solbach K, Gaul C. Medication-overuse headache: risk factors, pathophysiology and management. Nature reviews Neurology. 2016;12(10):575–83. Epub 2016/09/13. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2016.124 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Minen MT, Begasse De Dhaem O, Kroon Van Diest A, Powers S, Schwedt TJ, Lipton R, et al. Migraine and its psychiatric comorbidities. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2016;87(7):741–9. Epub 2016/01/07. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2015-312233 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.SIGN 155 • Pharmacological management of migraine 2018. Available from: http://www.sign.ac.uk.
  • 15.Cephalalgia group Pain-Relieving Branch Chinese Medical Association. Guideline for migraine in China. Chinese Journal of Pain Medicine. 2016;22(10). [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ha H, Gonzalez A. Migraine Headache Prophylaxis. American family physician. 2019;99(1):17–24. Epub 2019/01/03. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lipton RB, Buse DC, Serrano D, Holland S, Reed ML. Examination of unmet treatment needs among persons with episodic migraine: results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache. 2013;53(8):1300–11. Epub 2013/07/25. doi: 10.1111/head.12154 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Young NP, Philpot LM, Vierkant RA, Rosedahl JK, Upadhyaya SG, Harris A, et al. Episodic and Chronic Migraine in Primary Care. Headache. 2019;59(7):1042–51. Epub 2019/04/30. doi: 10.1111/head.13543 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6625910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Torta R, Ieraci V. Migraine and depression comorbidity: antidepressant options. Neurol Sci. 2012;33 Suppl 1:S117–8. Epub 2012/06/01. doi: 10.1007/s10072-012-1055-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vetvik KG, MacGregor EA. Sex differences in the epidemiology, clinical features, and pathophysiology of migraine. The Lancet Neurology. 2017;16(1):76–87. Epub 2016/11/12. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30293-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kozak HH, Boysan M, Uca AU, Aydin A, Kilinc I, Genc E, et al. Sleep quality, morningness-eveningness preference, mood profile, and levels of serum melatonin in migraine patients_ a case-control study. Acta neurologica Belgica. 2017;117(1):111–9. doi: 10.1007/s13760-016-0723-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Alstadhaug K SR, Bekkelund S. Insomnia and circadian variation of attacks in episodic migraine. Headache. 2007;47(8):1184–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00858.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kim J, Cho SJ, Kim WJ, Yang KI, Yun CH, Chu MK. Insufficient sleep is prevalent among migraineurs: a population-based study. J Headache Pain. 2017;18(1):50. Epub 2017/04/30. doi: 10.1186/s10194-017-0756-8 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5409905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marci Clark TJS, Stewart J Tepper, Nimanee Harris, Susan Martin, Sandhya Sapra, Neel Shah. Patient satisfaction with prophylactic migraine medications. the 59th Annual Scientific Meeting American Headache Society; Boston, MA.2017.
  • 25.Yu S, Zhang Y, Yao Y, Cao H. Migraine treatment and healthcare costs: retrospective analysis of the China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA) database. J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1):53. Epub 2020/05/15. doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-01117-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7222520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liu HW, Zou YH, Cao KG, Yu LH, Zhang Y, Fu CH, et al. Efficacy of Modified Wuzhuyu Decoction Granule () for Migraine Patients with Cold and Stasis Obstructing Meridian Syndrome: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Chinese journal of integrative medicine. 2018;24(6):409–14. Epub 2017/07/26. doi: 10.1007/s11655-017-2547-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cao K, Han F, Lin A, Yang W, Zhao J, Zhang H, et al. Zhengtian Capsule versus flunarizine in patients with migraine: a multi-center, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial. BMC complementary and alternative medicine. 2016;16(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12906-016-1321-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yu S, Ran Y, Xiao W, Tang W, Zhao J, Chen W, et al. Treatment of migraines with Tianshu capsule: a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. BMC complementary and alternative medicine. 2019;19(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12906-018-2420-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yu S, Ran Y, Wan Q, Yang X, Chen H, Wang H, et al. Efficacy and safety of toutongning capsule in patients with migraine: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2019;25(12):1215–24. doi: 10.1089/acm.2018.0500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fu C, Yu L, Zou Y, Cao K, Zhao J, Gong H, et al. Efficacy of chuanxiong ding tong herbal formula granule in the treatment and prophylactic of migraine patients: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2012;2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shan CS, Xu QQ, Shi YH, Wang Y, He ZX, Zheng GQ. Chuanxiong Formulae for Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2018;9:589. Epub 2018/07/18. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00589 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6036270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhou L, Chen P, Liu L, Zhang Y, Liu X, Wu Y, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of migraines. The American journal of Chinese medicine. 2013;41(05):1011–25. doi: 10.1142/S0192415X13500687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li J, Cao X, Wei J, Song L, Liao F, Zheng G, et al. Chuanxiong chadiao powder, a famous Chinese herbal prescription, for headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Complementary therapies in medicine. 2015;23(4):577–90. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2015.06.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lyu S, Zhang CS, Guo X, Zhang AL, Sun J, Lu C, et al. Oral Chinese Herbal Medicine as Prophylactic Treatment for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/5181587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1996;312(7040):1215–8. Epub 1996/05/11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2350940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ashina M, Buse DC, Ashina H, Pozo-Rosich P, Peres MF, Lee MJ, et al. Migraine: integrated approaches to clinical management and emerging treatments. The Lancet. 2021. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32342-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cao H. Basic theory of traditional Chinese medicine. Beijing: China Press of Traditional Chinese Medicine; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Guangdong hospital of Traditional Chinese medicine: Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Network Co. LTD; [cited 2011]. Available from: http://www.gdhtcm.com/index.html.
  • 39.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tfelt-Hansen P, Pascual J, Ramadan N, Dahlöf C, D’Amico D, Diener HC, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: third edition. A guide for investigators. Cephalalgia: an international journal of headache. 2012;32(1):6–38. Epub 2012/03/03. doi: 10.1177/0333102411417901 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tassorelli C, Diener HC, Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Ashina M, et al. Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia: an international journal of headache. 2018;38(5):815–32. Epub 2018/03/06. doi: 10.1177/0333102418758283 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Harden RN, Weinland SR, Remble TA, Houle TT, Colio S, Steedman S, et al. Medication Quantification Scale Version III: update in medication classes and revised detriment weights by survey of American Pain Society Physicians. The journal of pain: official journal of the American Pain Society. 2005;6(6):364–71. Epub 2005/06/10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2005.01.350 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Martin BC, Pathak DS, Sharfman MI, Adelman JU, Taylor F, Kwong WJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the migraine‐specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1). Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain. 2000;40(3):204–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006;166(10):1092–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13. Epub 2001/09/15. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1495268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Morin CM, Belleville G, Bélanger L, Ivers H. The Insomnia Severity Index: Psychometric Indicators to Detect Insomnia Cases and Evaluate Treatment Response. Sleep. 2011;34(5):601–8. doi: 10.1093/sleep/34.5.601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Baghyahi SBA, Gao Y, Taghanaki HB, Aval MB. 2738–Reliability and validity of the chinese translation of insomnia severity index (C-ISI) in chinese patients with insomnia. European Psychiatry. 2013;28(S1):1–.21920709 [Google Scholar]
  • 48.5-Point Likert Scale. In: Preedy VR, Watson RR, editors. Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2010. p. 4288–. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gliklich RE DN, Leavy MB. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. Rockville (MD) US: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April 2014. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208632/. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Agrawal R, Imieliński T, Swami A. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data; Washington, D.C., USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 1993. p. 207–16.
  • 51.You X, Xu Y, Huang J, Zhi Y, Wu F, Ding F, et al. A Data Mining-Based Analysis of Medication Rules in Treating Bone Marrow Suppression by Kidney-Tonifying Method. Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: eCAM. 2019;2019:1907848. Epub 2019/03/12. doi: 10.1155/2019/1907848 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6378015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lu P-H, Keng J-L, Kuo K-L, Wang Y-F, Tai Y-C, Kuo C-Y. An Apriori Algorithm-Based Association Rule Analysis to Identify Herb Combinations for Treating Uremic Pruritus Using Chinese Herbal Bath Therapy. Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: eCAM [Internet]. 2020 2020; 2020:[8854772 p.]. Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33299462. doi: 10.1155/2020/8854772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lu PH, Keng JL, Tsai FM, Lu PH, Kuo CY. An Apriori Algorithm-Based Association Rule Analysis to Identify Acupoint Combinations for Treating Diabetic Gastroparesis. Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: eCAM. 2021;2021:6649331. Epub 2021/04/10. doi: 10.1155/2021/6649331 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8018850 publication of this article. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Jama. 1992;268(17):2420–5. Epub 1992/11/04. doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dawes M, Summerskill W, Glasziou P, Cartabellotta A, Martin J, Hopayian K, et al. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Med Educ. 2005;5(1):1. Epub 2005/01/07. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-5-1 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC544887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Alston C, Paget L, Halvorson G, Novelli B, Guest J, McCabe P, et al. Communicating with patients on health care evidence. NAM Perspectives. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Zhao Y. Professor Wang Qi’s experience in treatment of migraine with constitution differentiation-disease differentiation-syndrome differentiation method. Worl J Integr Tradit Chin West Med 2019;14(6). [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Liu Y, Li C, Zhao Y. Study on the Law of Traditional Chinese Medicine on Migraine and Related Problems. J Emerg Tradit Chin Med 2019;28(07):1147–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Guo X, Wu M, Qiu Y, Hua R. Analysis of Tongue Image of 199 Female Migraine Patients and Discussion on Traditional Chinese Medicine Core Pathogenesis. J Hun Uni Chin Med 2020;40(04):440–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Liu Y, Li C, Zhao Y, Qin L. Research on the Rules of Chinese Medicine on Migraine Based on Association Rule J Emerg Tradit Chin Med 2020;29(01):46–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Wang Y, Jiang L. Analysis of prescription rules of migraine medical cases based on TCM inheritance auxiliary platform. J Intern Med of Prac Chin Med 2021;35(03):112–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Mehta P, Bressler NM. Identification and Recognition of Limitations of Retrospective Studies in Select Peer-reviewed Journal. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2016;57(12):5556–.27768800 [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kip KE, Cohen F, Cole SR, Wilhelmus KR, Patrick DL, Blair RC, et al. Recall bias in a prospective cohort study of acute time-varying exposures: example from the herpetic eye disease study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(5):482–7. Epub 2001/05/05. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00310-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Camm AJ, Fox KAA. Strengths and weaknesses of ’real-world’ studies involving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Open Heart. 2018;5(1):e000788. Epub 2018/05/02. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000788 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5922572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sarah Michiels

5 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-25486Migraine Patients Visiting Chinese Medicine Hospital: Protocol for a Prospective, Registry-Based, Real-World Observational Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please carefully address all points raised by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sarah Michiels

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Migraine Patients Visiting Chinese Medicine Hospital: Protocol for a Prospective, Registry-Based, Real-World Observational Cohort Study". Migraine has indeed been acknowledged as one of the most burdensome disorders, and treatment and prevention should be considered as an important health priority. Although I acknowledge some of the the limitations of RCT in the evaluation of treatment effectiveness in some cases, these design remain the only research design, in which causal relations between the randomized exposure (i.e. treatment) and outcome (e.g. quality of life) can be evaluated and established. The authors state that "the research evidence obtained from previous explanatory RCTs and systematic reviews need to be updated with more observational real-world evidence" to accommodate some issues that arise when conducting an RCT, such as "Such design may not reflect the complexity of migraine and its comorbidities (34), nor reflect the real-world practice of CHM which is commonly tailored according to individual’s syndrome differentiation (35)".

The step from RCT to observational trials to address all issues within an RCT-design is rather drastic, and the existence of pragmatic trials is ignored. Might I suggest the authors to consider the following publication on the use of pragmatic trials:

Ford, I., & Norrie, J. (2016). Pragmatic trials. New England journal of medicine, 375(5), 454-463.

Notwithstanding the limitations of RCT, observational studies have a tendency to yield highly biased estimates. Inferring on the effectiveness of CHM (as stated in the objectives of the authors "evaluate the effectiveness and safety of individualized CHM for adult migraine in a real-world setting;" will be a tough - if not impossible - challenge based on the method that was presented in the protocol of the authors. Registries can indeed uncover patterns and help in understanding health care seeking behaviour of certain groups. They can also help in understanding and exploring potential trends, but lack the ability to infer on causal relations. Frameworks around causal inference in observational studies have been suggested (see Causal Inference, What If by Robins and Hernan), but require a solid theoretical hypothesis. I would suggest the authors to consider creating a DAG, in which they represent the theoretical background on how there study might infer on a causal relation between exposure-outcome.

In the data-analyses, the authors state "Multiple imputation will be carried out to deal with missing data". However,

there is no information on the methodology that will be used to reach this goal. Which packages will be used?

Why do you rely on the Missing at Random (MAR) hypothesis? What if the data is rather NMAR? The section also lacks references. The authors refer to the "Apriori Algorithm", but no reference is added with a description of this algorithm.

In summary: Although registries can provide important insights, they limit the ability to infer on effectiveness.

I would suggest the authors to consider a pragmatic trial or - in case a pragmatic trial is infeasible - I would suggest the authors to focus more on patterns in healthcare behaviour.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

It is necessary to describe in detail the nature of CHM that will be used in this research, to connect it with previous research on animal models or in the laboratory research. It is necessary to show the chemical composition of the drug, the chemical formula of the drug, the site of action of the drug, the mechanism of action of the drug, the potential interactions of CHM with drugs for various comorbidities.

Introduction

I ask the authors to remove the part of the sentence which says that according to the latest classification, the division of migraine in relation to menstruation was made (this statement is not contained in the current classification).

Explain what is meant by a poor prognosis in patients with comorbidities.

The sentence "Currently there is no cure for migraine" is unnecessary.

List all groups of drugs, and western groups of drugs and western treatments for migraine. It is not enough to list only NSAIDs, triptans, CCB, beta blockers.

Are these drugs also used for comorbidity or just for migraine. If yes, for which comorbidities and provide references that confirm these claims.

OBJECTIVES

STUDY DESIGN

The dose of the medicine that the patients will take be determined on the basis of what references? What previous studies have confirmed the effectiveness of that dose and not some other dose of the drug? On the basis of which studies the administrative methods, courses, forms of CHM will be determined and which previous studies have confirmed that it is the best method, course, form?

Is it correct to collect data for patients who were not in the study during the entire planned period?

INTERVENTIONS

It is necessary to describe in detail the nature of CHM that will be used in this research, to connect it with previous research on animal models or in the laboratory. It is necessary to state the chemical composition of the drug, the chemical formula of the drug, the site of action of the drug, the mechanism of action of the drug, the potential interactions of CHM with drugs for various comorbidities. Are these medications used for an acute migraine attack or to prevent an attack or both?

DATA COLLECTION

TREATMENTS, EXAMINATIONS AND DIAGNOSES:

Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis - I would ask the authors to explain the meaning of this term in more detail.

SAMPLING METHOD AND SAMPLE SIZE

The number 400 is based on the number of views in which time period? Explain in more detail the selection of this number of patients.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Robby De Pauw

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 15;17(3):e0265137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265137.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Oct 2021

Comments from the Editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: The manuscript was resubmitted in compliance with PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the “Funding Information” and “Financial Disclosure” sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. We have checked the funding information and made them consistent.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Response: The ethics statement written in sections other than the Methods (Line 113-114) has been deleted.

Comments from Reviewer #1

1. The step from RCT to observational trials to address all issues within an RCT-design is rather drastic, and the existence of pragmatic trials is ignored. I would suggest the authors to consider a pragmatic trial or - in case a pragmatic trial is infeasible - I would suggest the authors to focus more on patterns in healthcare behaviour.

2. Inferring on the effectiveness of CHM (as stated in the objectives of the authors "evaluate the effectiveness and safety of individualized CHM for adult migraine in a real-world setting;" will be a tough - if not impossible - challenge based on the method that was presented in the protocol of the authors. I would suggest the authors to consider creating a DAG, in which they represent the theoretical background on how the study might infer on a causal relation between exposure-outcome.

Response to comments 1&2:

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

We revised the objectives of this study (see Line 94-99).

This study is an observational study, without any intervention being provided by the researcher. The purpose of this study is to explore the effects and safety of CHM treatments in the real-world clinical practice. Therefore, there is no causal inference would be made based on our study results.

However, the findings from this observational study will be invaluable for the future design of a pragmatic trial.

3. In the data-analyses, the authors state "Multiple imputation will be carried out to deal with missing data". However, there is no information on the methodology that will be used to reach this goal. Which packages will be used?

Why do you rely on the Missing at Random (MAR) hypothesis? What if the data is rather MNAR?

Response:

In this observational study, we would like to present the overall findings in real-world clinical setting as much as possible. Missing data will be handled using R-MICE package for the following outcome measures (migraine frequency, average pain intensity NRS, MSQ, GAD-7, PHQ-9, ISI) at each evaluation timepoint within the 12 weeks’ observation period.

As mentioned above, this observational study aims to explore the effects of CHM for migraine, summarise patterns of CHM for migraine and the characteristics of migraine patients, we will present what we observed for the patterns of CHM and the characteristics of patients.

The “Analytical methods” section has been revised to clarify this information (Line 244-262).

4. The section also lacks references. The authors refer to the "Apriori Algorithm", but no reference is added with a description of this algorithm

Response:

The reference and brief description have been added as suggested (Line 254-256).

Comments from reviewer #2

Introduction

1. I ask the authors to remove the part of the sentence which says that according to the latest classification, the division of migraine in relation to menstruation was made (this statement is not contained in the current classification).

Response:

Thanks for the suggestion. This statement has been removed.

2. Explain what is meant by a poor prognosis in patients with comorbidities.

Response:

An explanation about the “poor prognosis” was added (see Line 57-58).

3. The sentence "Currently there is no cure for migraine" is unnecessary.

List all groups of drugs, and western groups of drugs and western treatments for migraine. It is not enough to list only NSAIDs, triptans, CCB, beta blockers.

Are these drugs also used for comorbidity or just for migraine. If yes, for which comorbidities and provide references that confirm these claims.

Response:

The sentence of "Currently there is no cure for migraine" was deleted.

All groups of western drugs for migraine and the devices are listed in Line 62-71.

Specific drugs which can be adopted for migraine comorbidities as recommended by clinical guidelines were also listed in this paragraph.

STUDY DESIGN

4. The dose of the medicine that the patients will take be determined on the basis of what references? What previous studies have confirmed the effectiveness of that dose and not some other dose of the drug? On the basis of which studies the administrative methods, courses, forms of CHM will be determined and which previous studies have confirmed that it is the best method, course, form?

Response:

This is an observational study, the treatments for the patients in this study are prescribed by the clinicians according to each patient’ real situation. These interventions are not predefined nor interfered by the observation. We are recording and summarising what we observe in the real-world clinical practice.

5. Is it correct to collect data for patients who were not in the study during the entire planned period?

Response:

This study only collect data from patients who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

INTERVENTIONS

6. It is necessary to describe in detail the nature of CHM that will be used in this research, to connect it with previous research on animal models or in the laboratory. It is necessary to state the chemical composition of the drug, the chemical formula of the drug, the site of action of the drug, the mechanism of action of the drug, the potential interactions of CHM with drugs for various comorbidities.

Response:

As mentioned above, in this observational study, the CHM interventions are tailored based on each patient’ symptoms and need, and decided by the clinicians, who are independent from the researchers. The CHM treatments to be observed are not able to be anticipated, therefore we are not able to provide the required information in this protocol, but this will be addressed when we report the results of this study. Upon the completion of this observational study, we will identify the most frequent herbs, the core herb pairs and herb combinations being used in clinical practice, and then provide information on their mechanisms for migraine in the final study report.

7. Are these medications used for an acute migraine attack or to prevent an attack or both?

Response:

The western medications and CHM formulations being prescribed by clinicians can be used for either acute migraine attacks or migraine prevention.

DATA COLLECTION

TREATMENTS, EXAMINATIONS AND DIAGNOSES:

8. Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis - I would ask the authors to explain the meaning of this term in more detail.

Response:

Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis is the process of a comprehensive analysis of patients’ symptom and signs, under the principles of Chinese medicine aetiology and pathogenesis. It is used to guide the selection of Chinese medicine treatments.

Based on the Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis, treatments will be individualised because patients may present different syndromes although they are diagnosed with the same clinical condition; and each patient may present different syndromes in different stages of a whole disease course, therefore the treatment will also be modified accordingly.

SAMPLING METHOD AND SAMPLE SIZE

9. The number 400 is based on the number of views in which time period? Explain in more detail the selection of this number of patients.

Response:

The estimated number of participants is approximately 400 based on the average annually outpatient visit numbers at the headache clinic of GPHCM between July 2018 and July 2020.

This information has been clarified in the Methods section (see Line 221-222).

End.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Sarah Michiels

24 Feb 2022

Migraine Patients Visiting Chinese Medicine Hospital: Protocol for a Prospective, Registry-Based, Real-World Observational Cohort Study

PONE-D-21-25486R1

Dear Dr. Guo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sarah Michiels

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the answers. Keep in mind my comments when conducting research. I suggest that the paper should be accepted.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Sarah Michiels

7 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-25486R1

Migraine Patients Visiting Chinese Medicine Hospital: Protocol for a Prospective, Registry-Based, Real-World Observational Cohort Study

Dear Dr. Guo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Sarah Michiels

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Case report forms.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Migraine diary.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File

    (DOCX)

    S4 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES