Objectives This study aims to evaluate the drawings effectiveness in childhood headache assessment. Background Headache is a common cause of pain in children. Although drawings have been used in childhood to recognize psychological insights and pain perception, they were rarely used for headache characterization. Methods We collected drawings from 67 subjects with cephalalgia during a 22-month timeframe. The clinical diagnosis was made according to the 2nd edition of The International Headache Classification. Drawings were independently categorized as migraine or tension-type headache (TTH) by two child neuropsychiatrists blinded to the clinical data. Cohen kappa for interrater agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. Subjects were also divided into three age groups to assess the influence of age. Finally, a control group of 90 subjects was collected and K-means cluster analysis was performed. Results The drawings had a sensitivity of 85.71 and 81.48%, a specificity of 81.48 and 85.71%, and a PPV of 85.71 and 81.48%, for migraine and TTH diagnosis, respectively. Drawings by the older age group showed the highest predictability degree. Finally, by mean of cluster analysis, 59 of the 67 patients were correctly classified, whereas control subjects were similarly distributed between the two clusters. Conclusions Drawings are a useful instrument for migraine and TTH differential diagnosis. Thus, we suggest their inclusion in childhood headache diagnostic assessment.

Children's Headache: Drawings in the Diagnostic Work Up / Mazzotta, Silvia; Pavlidis, Elena; Cordori, Cecilia; Spagnoli, Carlotta; Pini, Luigi Alberto; Pisani, Francesco. - In: NEUROPEDIATRICS. - ISSN 0174-304X. - 46:4(2015), pp. 261-268. [10.1055/s-0035-1550147]

Children's Headache: Drawings in the Diagnostic Work Up

MAZZOTTA, Silvia;PAVLIDIS, Elena;CORDORI, Cecilia;SPAGNOLI, Carlotta;PISANI, Francesco
2015-01-01

Abstract

Objectives This study aims to evaluate the drawings effectiveness in childhood headache assessment. Background Headache is a common cause of pain in children. Although drawings have been used in childhood to recognize psychological insights and pain perception, they were rarely used for headache characterization. Methods We collected drawings from 67 subjects with cephalalgia during a 22-month timeframe. The clinical diagnosis was made according to the 2nd edition of The International Headache Classification. Drawings were independently categorized as migraine or tension-type headache (TTH) by two child neuropsychiatrists blinded to the clinical data. Cohen kappa for interrater agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. Subjects were also divided into three age groups to assess the influence of age. Finally, a control group of 90 subjects was collected and K-means cluster analysis was performed. Results The drawings had a sensitivity of 85.71 and 81.48%, a specificity of 81.48 and 85.71%, and a PPV of 85.71 and 81.48%, for migraine and TTH diagnosis, respectively. Drawings by the older age group showed the highest predictability degree. Finally, by mean of cluster analysis, 59 of the 67 patients were correctly classified, whereas control subjects were similarly distributed between the two clusters. Conclusions Drawings are a useful instrument for migraine and TTH differential diagnosis. Thus, we suggest their inclusion in childhood headache diagnostic assessment.
2015
Children's Headache: Drawings in the Diagnostic Work Up / Mazzotta, Silvia; Pavlidis, Elena; Cordori, Cecilia; Spagnoli, Carlotta; Pini, Luigi Alberto; Pisani, Francesco. - In: NEUROPEDIATRICS. - ISSN 0174-304X. - 46:4(2015), pp. 261-268. [10.1055/s-0035-1550147]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11381/2805031
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact