Systematic ReviewResearchPatient Education

Higher screen exposure was associated with greater migraine burden, but causality is unproven

Journal of neurology (PubMed)Aug 15, 2026

AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.

Brief summary

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that higher digital-screen exposure was associated with greater odds of migraine or headache, but the evidence was low certainty and drawn mainly from self-reported cross-sectional studies.

What NurseJet pulled from the source

Twenty-two studies included 14,763 participants, and 10 studies with 11,218 participants entered the primary meta-analysis. Higher exposure was associated with 1.60 times the odds of migraine or headache, with similar direction in adult and pediatric or adolescent subgroups; possible small-study effects, confounding, and non-objective exposure measurement limit causal interpretation.

Why this matters for nurses

Neurology and pediatric nurses often assess triggers, sleep, functional impact, medication use, and self-management in people with recurrent headache. Screen exposure is reasonable to assess alongside these factors, but the review does not show that screens cause migraine or that a fixed reduction will improve outcomes.

Bedside takeaway

Assess screen exposure as one possible migraine correlate, but avoid treating an observational association as proof of cause or benefit from restriction.

How This Applies in Practice

Use this when: Assessing an adult or adolescent with migraine or recurrent headache who reports screen use as a possible trigger or amplifier.

On your shift

Collect the timing and duration of screen exposure alongside headache onset, severity, sleep, hydration, posture, visual symptoms, medication use, and functional impact.
When appropriate, use a time-limited diary to look for a reproducible personal pattern before recommending changes within the care plan.
Escalate new neurologic deficits, sudden severe headache, concerning change in pattern, or symptoms that meet the organization's urgent-evaluation criteria.

Keep in mind: The review found a low-certainty association, not a causal treatment effect. Follow the headache pathway, facility policy, and provider orders rather than imposing an unsupported universal screen limit.

Key takeaways

The review included 22 studies and 14,763 participants; 10 studies contributed odds ratios to the primary meta-analysis.
Higher screen exposure was associated with greater migraine or headache odds, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.60.
The association pointed in the same direction in adults and in pediatric or adolescent participants.
GRADE certainty was low because exposure was largely self-reported and cross-sectional, with residual confounding and possible publication bias.

Practice implications

Ask about screen timing, duration, brightness, breaks, posture, sleep, and whether symptoms follow a reproducible pattern. Use a headache and exposure diary when it fits the care plan, and support individualized trigger management without presenting blanket screen avoidance as proven treatment.

Limitations & cautions

The evidence was almost entirely cross-sectional, screen exposure was usually self-reported, heterogeneity was moderate, and Egger's test suggested possible small-study effects. Association does not establish direction or causality, and prospective intervention studies are needed.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations

Exact source links

Open source

Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.

Journal of neurology (PubMed)

Journal of neurology (PubMed). Digital screen exposure and migraine burden: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Open original source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42603831/

Professional education only

This summary does not replace clinical judgment, facility policy, provider orders, or official guidelines. Verify practice changes against the original source and local protocol.

Related briefs

More updates for this clinical area

Back to Discover

Journal of midwifery & women's health (PubMed)Sep 7, 2026Research Article

A retrospective analysis of US natality data found no statistically significant yearly difference in neonatal mortality between freestanding birth centers and hospitals among term, singleton, vertex births without major medical risk factors from 2015 through 2024.

L&D / OB PedsAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchPatient EducationAI summary · original source linked below

Adjusted neonatal-mortality odds for freestanding birth centers fluctuated around 1.0 across the 10-year study period. No individual year showed a statistically significant difference from hospital births, including 2020 and 2021 when birth-center volume increased.

Key takeaways

The analysis was restricted to births meeting selected low-risk criteria.
The study found no evidence that higher birth-center use during the pandemic years increased neonatal mortality.
The observational design cannot establish that birth setting itself caused the mortality pattern.

Why this matters on shift

The findings add national outcome data for counseling and systems planning around freestanding birth-center care for appropriately selected low-risk pregnancies.

Bedside takeaway

Apply local eligibility, surveillance, escalation, and transfer protocols when caring for planned low-risk birth-center patients.

Nursing implications

Keep eligibility, surveillance, escalation, and transfer decisions anchored to local birth-center criteria and maternal-newborn protocols.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. The study used retrospective vital-record data, was limited to selected low-risk births, and cannot exclude residual differences between people who delivered in birth centers and hospitals.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of midwifery & women's health (PubMed). Neonatal Mortality Risk Among Births in Freestanding Birth Centers, 2015 to 2024.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Pediatric emergency care (PubMed)Sep 7, 2026Research Article

A double-blind randomized trial found no reduction in vomiting or faster oral tolerance with intravenous pantoprazole versus placebo in children with acute gastroenteritis and persistent vomiting after ondansetron.

Peds EmergencyAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchMedication SafetyAI summary · original source linked below

The trial randomized 100 children. Vomiting episodes and oral tolerance at 6 and 12 hours did not differ significantly, while median hospital stay was 2 days with pantoprazole and 1 day with placebo.

Key takeaways

The median participant age was 14 months, and 67% of participants were male.
Oral tolerance at 12 hours was 86% in both groups.
The longer stay associated with pantoprazole requires cautious interpretation because this was a single-center trial.

Why this matters on shift

The trial does not support empiric intravenous proton-pump inhibition for persistent vomiting in pediatric acute gastroenteritis after ondansetron.

Bedside takeaway

Clarify the indication for empiric acid suppression and keep hydration and oral-tolerance assessment central to care.

Nursing implications

Prioritize the ordered hydration and oral-tolerance plan, document ongoing emesis, and clarify the indication before administering empiric acid suppression.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. This was a single-center study of 100 children in Tehran, and the abstract does not describe adverse events or explain why hospitalization was longer in the pantoprazole group.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Pediatric emergency care (PubMed). Effect of Intravenous Pantoprazole on Clinical Outcomes in Pediatric Acute Gastroenteritis: A Placebo-Controlled RCT.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology (PubMed)Sep 4, 2026Research Article

A five-center randomized trial found similar rescue-opioid use and moderate-to-severe PACU pain with dexmedetomidine-based opioid-sparing analgesia and fentanyl-based analgesia during elective craniotomy for brain tumors.

Emergency ICUAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchMedication SafetyAI summary · original source linked below

The trial randomized 500 adults. Moderate-to-severe PACU pain occurred in 145 of 242 assessed participants in the fentanyl group and 138 of 233 in the dexmedetomidine group, with no significant difference.

Key takeaways

Intraoperative rescue fentanyl use did not differ significantly between groups.
Hypotension was more common with dexmedetomidine, while postoperative shivering was less common.
Other in-hospital outcomes were similar between the two regimens.

Why this matters on shift

An opioid-sparing label did not translate into better early pain control in this trial, and the differing hypotension and shivering profiles remain relevant during perioperative handoff and recovery monitoring.

Bedside takeaway

Monitor pain, hemodynamics, sedation, and shivering in relation to the analgesic regimen and local protocol.

Nursing implications

During PACU and postoperative handoff, monitor pain, hemodynamics, sedation, and shivering according to the administered regimen and local protocol.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. The trial involved elective tumor craniotomy at five Indian centers, both groups also received locoregional analgesia, and the abstract does not provide longer-term outcome results in detail.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology (PubMed). Opioid-Sparing Versus Opioid-Based Analgesia for Craniotomy: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

How This Applies in Practice

Key takeaways

Practice implications

Limitations & cautions

Exact source links

More updates for this clinical area

Low-risk birth-center births showed no higher neonatal mortality in a 10-year analysis

IV pantoprazole did not improve vomiting or oral tolerance in pediatric gastroenteritis

Dexmedetomidine did not improve early pain outcomes versus fentanyl for craniotomy