CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-07-24). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 3 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 1866 · Search date 2026-07-24 · Methodology v0.6

CEFALY,
does it really help with Reduction in episodic migraine days with daily preventive use?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 46 · Safety caution
The device settings are real, but confirmation of a mean reduction in migraine days narrowly failed
Forehead irritation, redness, tingling, sleepiness, and headache can occur. Users with metallic or electronic head implants, a pacemaker or wearable defibrillator, or recent facial or head trauma should follow the official contraindications and precautions.
What the
research shows
The grade is C. PREMICE randomized 67 people and analyzed all 67, 34 active and 33 sham, after last-observation-carried-forward imputation. Mean monthly migraine-day reduction missed significance between groups, P=0.054, while the coprimary rate of at least 50% response was significantly higher, 38.24% versus 12.12%, P=0.023.
What the
ads claim
Marketing extends a real 60-Hz device specification and a large response in some users into a dependable preventive effect for everyone.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The official CEFALY Enhanced manual specifies 60 Hz, a 250-microsecond pulse width, a maximum intensity of 16 mA, and a 20-minute PREVENT session. These are measurable device facts, not proof of prevention.
  • PREMICE randomized and analyzed all 67 after last-observation-carried-forward imputation; 59 was the completer count. The migraine-day comparison gave P=0.054, while response of at least 50% was 38.24% versus 12.12%, P=0.023.
  • Verdict 1859, which is D with 30 points, concerns gabapentin prevention. Evidence for that drug is not evidence for this device.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 1866 · C 46
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

PREMICE randomized 67 people. Although 59 completed treatment, the primary analysis included all 67 after last-observation-carried-forward imputation, 34 active and 33 sham. For the first coprimary endpoint, monthly migraine days changed from 6.94 to 4.88 in the active group, -2.06 (95% CI -3.58 to -0.54), and from 6.54 to 6.22 with sham, -0.32 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.63); the between-group P value was 0.054. The other coprimary endpoint, response of at least 50%, was 13 of 34, 38.24%, versus 4 of 33, 12.12%, P=0.023. Trial costs were publicly funded by the Walloon Region under Research Convention No. 1017266, DG06. STX-Med supplied devices and technical help for allocation and blinding; the paper does not report manufacturer funding of trial costs.

02

Why this is classified as C (46)

Publicly funded PREMICE showed a clinically recognized response of at least 50%, but the mean migraine-day coprimary endpoint failed, the trial had only 67 participants, and no separate sham replication exists, yielding C with 46 points.

Counterpoint. A trial of use can be reasonable for adults who cannot take medicines or prefer a non-drug option. A headache diary over two to three months can show whether an individual response justifies continued use.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Split coprimary outcomes, one small confirmatory trial, and no independent sham replication

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointPPatient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Mean reduction in monthly migraine daysCThe between-group coprimary test failed at P=0.054.
At least a 50% reduction in migraine daysCThe 38.24% versus 12.12% result was positive, but it comes from one small trial.
Independently replicated long-term preventive efficacyDNo additional independent sham-controlled confirmatory trial of the same device exists.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Schoenen J et al. 2013 PREMICEMulticenter double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial59Walloon Region, FNRS, and University of Liege support; devices supplied by STX-MedCoprimary: change in monthly migraine days and 50% responder rateThe between-group migraine-day test failed at P=0.054; the 50% responder rate succeeded at 38.24% versus 12.12%, P=0.023.Key single sham-controlled trial
Danno D et al. 2019Four-center prospective open-label single-arm study83No external study funding reported in the article; manufacturer device usedChange in monthly migraine days at 12 weeksMigraine days decreased from 8.16 to 6.84, but the absence of a control prevents confirmatory inference.Supportive uncontrolled evidence
§

Receipt — 3 References

All 3 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-24).

Schoenen J, Vandersmissen B, Jeangette S, et al. Migraine prevention with a supraorbital transcutaneous stimulator: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 2013;80(8):697-704. PMID: 23390177. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182825055.
checked
Danno D, Iigaya M, Imai N, Igarashi H, Takeshima T. The safety and preventive effects of a supraorbital transcutaneous stimulator in Japanese migraine patients. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):9900. PMID: 31289281. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46044-8.
checked
CEFALY Technology. CEFALY Enhanced User Manual. 2024:94-95. PMID: none. DOI: none.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-24 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

CEFALY x prevention of episodic migraine Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] CEFALY x prevention of episodic migraine — Evidence Grade C·46. 3 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/cognition/cefaly-episodic-migraine-prevention/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.