ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2023
Verification of a clinical decision support system for the diagnosis of headache disorders based on patient-computer interactions: a multi-center study.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abnormal baseline brain activity in migraine without aura with versus without patent foramen ovale: a resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Methodology and baseline characteristics of the China Migraine registry (CHIME): a nationwide, multi-center, prospective cohort study of 11,814 patients.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Observational
- Mesocorticolimbic circuitry in episodic migraine: reward- and punishment-related responses and resting-state connectivity.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- [CefaleApp: A Mobile Application for Migraine Diagnosis in Primary Health Care].Revista de neurologia · 2026Article
- Validation of an AI-Based platform for structured diagnosis of headache disorders using ICHD-3 criteria.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Adherence status and influencing factors of acute and preventive pharmacotherapy among migraine patients in China.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- Regional and whole-brain neurofunctional alterations during pain empathic processing of physical but not affective pain in migraine patients.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- Review
- Evaluating Headache and Facial Pain in a Headache Diagnostic Laboratory: Experiences from the Danish Headache Center.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough headache disorders are common, the current diagnostic approach is unsatisfactory. Previously, we designed a guideline-based clinical decision support system (CDSS 1.0) for diagnosing headache disorders. However, the system requires doctors to enter electronic information, which may limit widespread use.
methodsIn this study, we developed the updated CDSS 2.0, which handles clinical information acquisition via human-computer conversations conducted on personal mobile devices in an outpatient setting. We tested CDSS 2.0 at headache clinics in 16 hospitals in 14 provinces of China.
resultsOf the 653 patients recruited, 18.68% (122/652) were suspected by specialists to have secondary headaches. According to "red-flag" responses, all these participants were warned of potential secondary risks by CDSS 2.0. For the remaining 531 patients, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of assessments made using only electronic data firstly. In Comparison A, the system correctly recognized 115/129 (89.15%) cases of migraine without aura (MO), 32/32 (100%) cases of migraine with aura (MA), 10/10 (100%) cases of chronic migraine (CM), 77/95 (81.05%) cases of probable migraine (PM), 11/11 (100%) cases of infrequent episodic tension-type headache (iETTH), 36/45 (80.00%) cases of frequent episodic tension-type headache (fETTH), 23/25 (92.00%) cases of chronic tension-type headache (CTTH), 53/60 (88.33%) cases of probable tension-type headache (PTTH), 8/9 (88.89%) cases of cluster headache (CH), 5/5 (100%) cases of new daily persistent headache (NDPH), and 28/29 (96.55%) cases of medication overuse headache (MOH). In Comparison B, after combining outpatient medical records, the correct recognition rates of MO (76.03%), MA (96.15%), CM (90%), PM (75.29%), iETTH (88.89%), fETTH (72.73%), CTTH (95.65%), PTTH (79.66%), CH (77.78%), NDPH (80%), and MOH (84.85%) were still satisfactory. A patient satisfaction survey indicated that the conversational questionnaire was very well accepted, with high levels of satisfaction reported by 852 patients.
conclusionsThe CDSS 2.0 achieved high diagnostic accuracy for most primary and some secondary headaches. Human-computer conversation data were well integrated into the diagnostic process, and the system was well accepted by patients. The follow-up process and doctor-client interactions will be future areas of research for the development of CDSS for headaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.