Taghipourazam Sahar, Cortés-Vega Maria-Dolores, García-Muñoz Cristina
Department of Physiotherapy, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain.
Departamento de Ciencias de la Salud y Biomédicas, Universidad Loyola Andalucia, 41704 Seville, Spain.
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 May 5;13(9):1061. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13091061.
Exercise has gained attention as a potentially beneficial non-pharmacological intervention, but whether this type of intervention presents a higher dropout rate compared to other interventions is still unknown. This systematic review, with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, aims to determine whether exercise or comparators present lower or higher attrition in patients with migraine. A search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until March 2025. The methodological quality was evaluated using the JBI scale for randomized trials. Proportion meta-analysis calculated the dropout rate. Odds ratio meta-analysis under 1 indicated lower attrition in experimental participants. Subgroup meta-analyses sorted by type of exercise, control, and migraine were conducted to explore variability in results based on the mentioned moderators. The overall pooled dropout rate was 6.7%, 11.6% for the exercise groups, and 10.1% for the comparators. No statistical difference was found between groups of studies, type of migraine, type of exercise, and type of comparator ( ≥ 0.05). Only the odds ratio results for migraine with auras showed a lower pooled dropout rate in favor of control participants, OR = 1.18. Although there is no statistically significant difference, the meta-analysis of proportions shows a higher loss rate in exercise-based interventions. However, the high heterogeneity found in the included studies prevents us from drawing firm conclusions. Furthermore, adequate adherence to the CONSORT guidelines in reporting losses and their reasons could help design appropriate retention strategies for studies and interventions based on exercise in patients with migraines.
运动作为一种潜在有益的非药物干预措施已受到关注，但与其他干预措施相比，这种干预类型的退出率是否更高仍不清楚。本系统评价及随机对照试验的荟萃分析旨在确定运动或对照措施在偏头痛患者中是否具有较低或较高的损耗率。截至2025年3月，在PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆进行了检索。使用JBI随机试验量表评估方法学质量。比例荟萃分析计算退出率。优势比荟萃分析小于1表明试验参与者的损耗率较低。进行了按运动类型、对照和偏头痛分类的亚组荟萃分析，以探讨基于上述调节因素的结果变异性。总体合并退出率为6.7%，运动组为11.6%，对照组为10.1%。在研究组、偏头痛类型、运动类型和对照类型之间未发现统计学差异（≥0.05）。仅伴有先兆偏头痛的优势比结果显示对照组参与者的合并退出率较低，OR = 1.18。尽管没有统计学上的显著差异，但比例荟萃分析显示基于运动的干预措施中的损耗率较高。然而，纳入研究中发现的高异质性使我们无法得出确凿结论。此外，在报告损耗及其原因时充分遵守CONSORT指南有助于为偏头痛患者基于运动的研究和干预措施设计适当的保留策略。
