Error in Additional Contributions.

Zhen Wang,Juliana H. VanderPluym,Mohammad Hassan Murad
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.16158
IF: 11.816
2021-01-01
JAMA
Abstract:In Reply In response to our systematic review about acute treatments of migraine, 1 Dr Hagan draws attention to timolol, 0.5%, eye drops and Dr Moisset and colleagues highlight eletriptan as potential acute treatments of migraine.Both of these medications were evaluated in our systematic review; however, due to the space limitations, we presented the related studies in the accompanying Supplement.A more detailed discussion of these 2 treatments can be found in our report to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2 In our review, 1 triptans were considered a drug class and individual triptans were not compared.Data in the triptan table were extracted from a set of published reviews that met eligibility criteria and provided data that allowed construction of the table.Regarding noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, Moisset and colleagues argue that the strength of this evidence should be labeled as insufficient because it was derived from a single randomized trial 3 and was not statistically significant.We had downgraded the strength of evidence by 1 level due to imprecision about pain relief at 2 hours, and downgraded it by 2 levels due to severe imprecision about pain freedom at 2 hours.Lowering the strength of evidence further and calling it insufficient would make the data derived from this randomized trial similar to "no evidence" or to evidence derived from a case report.From an evidence user perspective, this randomized trial 3 presents the best available estimate for the effect of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation as an acute therapy for migraine, although it has large statistical uncertainty, reflected by wide confidence intervals.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?