Validation of the Arabic Version of the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale Among Lebanese Patients with Migraine

Aims: To validate the Arabic version of the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and to evaluate the impact of the most frequently studied risk factors for migraine disability on the total MIDAS score in a Lebanese population. Methods: This prospective study was performed from January 2017 to May 2017 and included 44 patients with migraine. Data were obtained using a questionnaire identifying sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, and migraine characteristics. The Arabic MIDAS was used to quantify the disability associated with headaches over a 3-month period. Ten days after completing the MIDAS, the participants were interviewed again to assess testretest reproducibility. The validity of the MIDAS construct in the Lebanese population was confirmed by carrying out factor analyses for all the items of the questionnaire using the principal component analysis technique with a promax rotation. Results: The MIDAS items converged over a solution of one factor that had an eigenvalue > 1, explaining a total of 63.25% of the variance (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.812). Photophobia, vomiting, and duration of migraine attack of 24 to 48 hours significantly increased the MIDAS score by 21.396, 22.0, and 17.396 points, respectively, whereas a high socioeconomic level significantly decreased the MIDAS score by 6.837 points. Conclusion: This first linguistically validated Arabic version of the MIDAS was developed to improve migraine management in Arabic-speaking patients. Moreover, the results suggest that having longer migraine duration, more accompanying symptoms, and a low socioeconomic level can increase the MIDAS score and thus the level of disability.

attack;duration;MIDAS scale;migraine;photophobia

1.Woldeamanuel YW, Cowan RP. Migraine affects 1 in 10 people worldwide featuring recent rise: A systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based studies involving 6 million participants. J Neurol Sci 2017;372:307–315.

2.Stewart W, Lipton R. Need for care and perceptions of MIDAS among headache sufferers study. CNS Drugs 2002; 16(suppl):s5–s11.

3.El Hasnaoui A, Doble A, Gaudin AF. Tools for assessing patient perception of the impact of migraine [in French]. CNS Drugs 2006;20(spec no.):24–36.

4.Merikangas KR. Contributions of epidemiology to our understanding of migraine. Headache 2013;53:230–246.

5.Seng EK, Buse DC, Klepper JE, et al. Psychological factors associated with chronic migraine and severe migraine-related disability: An observational study in a tertiary headache center. Headache 2017;57:593–604.

6.Kim SY, Park SP. The role of headache chronicity among predictors contributing to quality of life in patients with migraine:A hospital-based study. J Headache Pain 2014;15:68.

7.Bond DS, Buse DC, Lipton RB, et al. Clinical pain catastrophizing in women with migraine and obesity. Headache 2015; 55:923–933.

8.Ford S, Calhoun A, Kahn K, Mann J, Finkel A. Predictors of disability in migraineurs referred to a tertiary clinic: Neck pain, headache characteristics, and coping behaviors. Headache 2008;48:523–528.

9.Zandifar A, Asgari F, Haghdoost F, et al. Reliability and validity of the migraine disability assessment scale among migraine and tension type headache in Iranian patients. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:978064.

10.Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia 2013;33:629–808.

11.National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/tobacco/tobacco_glossary.htm. Accessed 10 July, 2018.12.Iigaya M, Sakai F, Kolodner KB, Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Reliability and validity of the Japanese Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire. Headache. 2003;43(4): 343-352.

13.Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Whyte J, et al. An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 1999;53:988–994.

14.Mickey RM, Greenland S. The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:125–137.

15.Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med 2008;3:17.

16.Maldonado G, Greenland S. Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:923–936.

17.D’Amico D, Mosconi P, Genco S, et al. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: Translation and reliability of the Italian version. Cephalalgia 2001;21:947–952.

18.Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985;38:27–36.

19.Lee HS, Chung CS, Song HJ, Park HS. The reliability and validity of the MIDAS (Migraine Disability Assessment) questionnaire for Korean migraine sufferers. J Korean Neurol Assoc 2000;18:287–291.

20.Oikonomidi T, Vikelis M, Artemiadis A, Chrousos GP, Darviri C. Reliability and validity of the Greek Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Pharmacoecon Open 2018;2:77–85.

21.Galioto R, O’Leary KC, Thomas JG, et al. Lower inhibitory control interacts with greater pain catastrophizing to predict greater pain intensity in women with migraine and overweight/obesity. J Headache Pain 2017;18:41.

22.Corrêa Tdos S, Santos KM, Galato D. Prevalence and management of headache in a selected area of Southern Santa Catarina. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2010;68:216–223.

23.dos Santos Paivaa GF, do Nascimento Silva DB, Feijó CA. Exploratory note on consumption and socioeconomic classification in Brazil based on evidences from the Family Expenditure Survey [in Portuguese]. Rev Econ Contemp 2016; 20:207–228.

24.Lipton RB, Serrano D, Holland S, Fanning KM, Reed ML, Buse DC. Barriers to the diagnosis and treatment of migraine: Effects of sex, income, and headache features. Headache 2013;53:81–92.

25.Queiroz LP, Barea LM, Blank N. An epidemiological study of headache in Florianopolis, Brazil. Cephalalgia 2006; 26:122–127.

26.Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Scher AI. Epidemiology and economic impact of migraine. Curr Med Res Opin 2001;17(suppl):s4–s12.

27.Garciá-Cabo Fernández C, Sánchez-Lozano P, Pérez-Álvarez A, Martínez-Ramos JM, Martínez-Rodríguez L, Pascual J. Sociodemographic characteristics of a cohort of patients with chronic migraine from a health district in Asturias. Neurologia 2016;31:157–160.

28.Ferracini GN, Florencio LL, Dach F, et al. Musculoskeletal disorders of the upper cervical spine in women with episodic or chronic migraine. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2017;53:342–350.

29.Zarcone D, Corbetta S. Shared mechanisms of epilepsy, migraine and affective disorders. Neurol Sci 2017;38 (suppl):s73–s76.

30.Gardner A, Boles RG. Beyond the serotonin hypothesis: Mitochondria, inflammation and neurodegeneration in major depression and affective spectrum disorders. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2011;35:730–743.

31.Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Regulation of the stress response by the gut microbiota: Implications for psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2012;37:1369–1378.

32.Ruhé HG, Mason NS, Schene AH. Mood is indirectly related to serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine levels in humans: A meta-analysis of monoamine depletion studies. Mol Psychiatry 2007;12:331–359.

33.Smith SC, Wagner MS. Clinical endocannabinoid deficiency (CECD) revisited: Can this concept explain the therapeutic benefits of cannabis in migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome and other treatment-resistant conditions? Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2014;35:198–201.