Psychological therapies vs controls: Number of participants reporting an adverse event
It is very uncertain whether psychological therapies changes adverse events (proportion of people reporting an adverse event)… compared with controls (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Psychological therapies vs controls Adverse events (proportion of people reporting an adverse event) Higher numbers mean more people reporting an adverse event · adults (≥ 18 years) with migraine It is very uncertain whether psychological therapies changes adverse events (proportion of people reporting an adverse event)… compared with controls (very low certainty). Psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.16 [0, 7.85] | 2 studies · 208 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.