Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we set out to determine whether individual headache sufferers can learn about the potency of their headache triggers (causes) using only natural experimentation. BACKGROUND: Headache patients naturally use the covariation of the presence-absence of triggers with headache attacks to assess the potency of triggers. The validity of this natural experimentation has never been investigated. A companion study has proposed 3 assumptions that are important for assigning causal status to triggers. This manuscript examines one of these assumptions, constancy in trigger presentation, using real-world conditions. METHODS: The similarity of day-to-day weather conditions over 4 years, as well as the similarity of ovarian hormones and perceived stress over a median of 89 days in 9 regularly cycling headache sufferers, was examined using several available time series. An arbitrary threshold of 90% similarity using Gower's index identified similar days for comparison. RESULTS: The day-to-day variability in just these 3 headache triggers is substantial enough that finding 2 naturally similar days for which to contrast the effect of a fourth trigger (eg, drinking wine vs not drinking wine) will only infrequently occur. Fluctuations in weather patterns resulted in a median of 2.3 days each year that were similar (range 0-27.4). Considering fluctuations in stress patterns and ovarian hormones, only 1.5 days/month (95% confidence interval 1.2-2.9) and 2.0 days/month (95% confidence interval 1.9-2.2), respectively, met our threshold for similarity. CONCLUSION: Although assessing the personal causes of headache is an age-old endeavor, the great many candidate triggers exhibit variability that may prevent sound conclusions without assistance from formal experimentation or statistical balancing.