ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
ChatGPT as an Information Source for Patients with Migraines: A Qualitative Case Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Arabic-Language AI Chatbot Responses to Migraine-Related Questions: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Use of ChatGPT for Urinary Symptom Management Among People With Spinal Cord Injury or Disease: Qualitative Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- Use of the Consumer Health Literacy Quotient to Quantify and Explore Self-Care Readiness Among Consumers in Four Asia-Pacific Countries.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Migraines are one of the most common and expensive neurological diseases worldwide. Non-pharmacological and digitally delivered treatment options have long been used in the treatment of migraines. For instance, migraine management tools, online migraine diagnosis or digitally networked patients have been used. Recently, applications of ChatGPT are used in fields of healthcare ranging from identifying potential research topics to assisting professionals in clinical diagnosis and helping patients in managing their health. Despite advances in migraine management, only a minority of patients are adequately informed and treated. It is important to provide these patients with information to help them manage the symptoms and their daily activities. The primary aim of this case study was to examine the appropriateness of ChatGPT to handle symptom descriptions responsibly, suggest supplementary assistance from credible sources, provide valuable perspectives on treatment options, and exhibit potential influences on daily life for patients with migraines. Using a deductive, qualitative study, ten interactions with ChatGPT on different migraine types were analyzed through semi-structured interviews. ChatGPT provided relevant information aligned with common scientific patient resources. Responses were generally intelligible and situationally appropriate, providing personalized insights despite occasional discrepancies in interaction. ChatGPT's empathetic tone and linguistic clarity encouraged user engagement. However, source citations were found to be inconsistent and, in some cases, not comprehensible, which affected the overall comprehensibility of the information. ChatGPT might be promising for patients seeking information on migraine conditions. Its user-specific responses demonstrate potential benefits over static web-based sources. However, reproducibility and accuracy issues highlight the need for digital health literacy. The findings underscore the necessity for continuously evaluating AI systems and their broader societal implications in health communication.
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.