2025/06/06 by Wenyan Zhu, Yijun Zhan, Jian Pei +5 · 1 voice
Medicine · Neuroscience · #Migraine and Headache Studies #Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies #Neurological Disorders and Treatments
paper · pdf · doi:10.1186/s10194-025-02078-0
openalex publication_date 2025/06/06 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
BACKGROUND: Migraine affects more than one billion people worldwide, and there is growing concern about the burden of migraine. Migraine affects cognitive function during an attack, but reports are inconsistent on whether the effect of migraine on cognitive function persists and increases the risk of developing dementia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine whether migraine is a risk factor for dementia. METHODS: We searched six databases and included cohort studies with participants without dementia and with migraine at baseline, the outcome of interest was the risk of dementia, expressed in adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 11 cohort studies containing 6,964,353 participants were included. Migraine increased the risk of all-cause dementia (HR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09–1.46), AD (HR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.26–1.38), and VaD (HR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.24–1.32). Subgroup analyses revealed migraine with aura had an increased risk of all-cause dementia compared to migraine without aura. The pooled results showed that migraine significantly increase the risk of all-cause dementia in studies with high quality and studies with sample sizes more than 2000. The results of meta-regression analyses revealed that region, migraine type, diagnostic criteria for dementia, gender, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score, sample size, controls and mean follow-up time were not significant sources of study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggest migraine as a risk factor for dementia. Due to significant heterogeneity between studies, residual confounding factors and bias, the results should be cautiously interpreted.