PRESENTATIONS AND INTERACTIVE DISCUSSION
|
|
Excellent |
Poor |
|
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Insights Into Basic Science of Chronic Migraine
Andrew C. Charles, MD |
| Overall presentation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinical relevance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Presentation style/visuals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wizardry or Science of Chronic Migraine Treatment
Stephen D. Silberstein, MD, FACP |
| Overall presentation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Clinical relevance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Presentation style/visuals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Directions in Treating Chronic Migraine
David W. Dodick, MD, FRCP (C), FACP |
| Overall presentation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Clinical relevance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Presentation style/visuals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinical Consult: Q&A and Interactive Discussion
David W. Dodick, MD, FRCP (C), FACP, and Faculty
|
| Overall presentation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Clinical relevance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Presentation style/visuals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Activity:
|
|
Agree |
Disagree
|
|
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
As a result of this activity, I am better able to:
Describe the biology, classification, and progression of chronic migraine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Explain prevailing theories about the pathophysiology of chronic migraine and review the mechanisms of action of current and future therapies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Examine current clinical trials, management strategies, and novel therapeutic modalities for improved treatment of chronic migraine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Define chronic migraine patient populations for whom prophylactic, localized therapy has shown clinical benefit and utilize prophylaxis in this population as needed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This activity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Met my expectations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Was relevant to my clinical practice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Was presented without commercial bias |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Logistics were well organized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Environment was conducive to learning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
After participating in this activity, I will change my clinical practice by:
|
|
Additional comments: |
|