Skip to the main content

Joints, muscles and pain

Riboflavin (vitamin B2)and Migraine frequency

Both sources here measured lower migraine frequency.

How sure anyone can be

Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

Further research may change this.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

-1.34
number of migraine attacks, mean difference versus control (the abstract does not state the counting period)

One further source recorded only which way the numbers went, without a number.

None of these sources gave a likely range — the band the real answer probably sits in — so how precise these numbers are is still an open question here.

Two sources, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2025

    Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

    Effects of selected dietary supplements on migraine prophylaxis: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    Neurol Sci. 2025;46(2):651-670. doi:10.1007/s10072-024-07794-0. PMID:39404918.

    Number reported
    -1.34
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    number of migraine attacks, mean difference versus control (the abstract does not state the counting period)
    Who was studied
    Adult with migraine
    Compared with
    placebo or control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, one step down: imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Imprecision brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    3. Ends at ModerateOne step down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    risk of bias and indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Systematic review, 2022

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Effect of Vitamin B2 supplementation on migraine prophylaxis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Nutr Neurosci. 2022;25(9):1801-1812. doi:10.1080/1028415X.2021.1904542. PMID:33779525.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    no pooled mean difference reported in the abstract; significance only (frequency p = .001)
    Who was studied
    Adult with migraine
    Compared with
    placebo or control
    Amount taken
    400 mg/d vitamin B2
    For how long
    90 days
    Disagreement between studies
    I2 = 65% for frequency; I2 = 89% for migraine days
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Inconsistency brought it down to Very lowheterogeneity across pooled studies is high (I² = 89%)Reported in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One give no number at all, only which way it went.
  • Two give no likely range, so how precise those numbers are is unknown.
  • Two do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.
  • For how long — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Nothing left on our list for Riboflavin (vitamin B2)

All two things on our list for Riboflavin (vitamin B2) have been read. That is rare here.

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.