• Hui Zheng, Min Chen, Dequan Huang, Juan Li, Qin Chen, and Jianqiao Fang.
• Acupuncture & Tuina College/The 3rd Teaching Hospital, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
• BMJ Open. 2015 May 6; 5 (5): e007594.

IntroductionMultiple interventions are effective for migraine prophylaxis. However, the comparative effectiveness of these interventions is still not clear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to summarise the direct and indirect evidence for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent migraine attack.Methods And AnalysisWe will perform an umbrella systematic review to identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the recommended interventions for migraine prophylaxis according to the guidelines. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library for systematic reviews, which will be screened for RCTs. We will describe the general information of the RCTs for participants, interventions, outcome measurements, comparisons and the primary findings. Additionally, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to determine the comparative effectiveness of the treatments with a random-effects model. The absolute and relative effectiveness of the treatments will be provided. The heterogeneity and inconsistency between trials will be assessed by the I(2) statistical test and Cochrane's Q test. Risk of bias will be assessed and the overall strength of the evidence will be summarised.DiscussionThe result of this network meta-analysis will provide direct and indirect evidence of treatments for migraine prophylaxis, and it may provide a ranking of the treatments for patients and clinicians to help them select the best option.Trial Registration NumberPROSPERO CRD42015015297.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

17 keywords...

hide…