Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41098085›Full record

ReviewHeadache2026

Telemedicine is effective and safe for clinical management of patients with headache disorders: An American Headache Society position statement.

Karissa N Arca, Allyson B Bazarsky, Derek Y Yuan, Raissa Villanueva, Deborah I Friedman, Andrew Charles, American Headache Society Board of Directors

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

Review in Headache, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Telemedicine for headache disorders in real-world practice: from patient experience to health system impact.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Karissa N ArcaDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Allyson B BazarskyDepartment of Neurology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Derek Y YuanDepartment of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Raissa VillanuevaDepartment of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.
Deborah I FriedmanYellow Rose Headache and Neuro-Ophthalmology Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Andrew CharlesUCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3379-054X
American Headache Society Board of Directors

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/

backgroundThis study was undertaken to review the published literature and provide a position statement from the American Headache Society regarding the safety, efficacy, and impact on access to care of telemedicine for the clinical management of patients with headache disorders. Access to specialized care in headache medicine is severely limited in the United States and worldwide. Telemedicine has been used as an approach to care delivery in headache medicine for more than a decade, with accelerated adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is now uncertainty regarding the extent to which telemedicine will be accepted by health systems and reimbursed by payers moving forward. The purpose of this position statement is to summarize evidence and clinical experience supporting the utility of telemedicine in headache medicine.

methodsEvidence regarding the safety and efficacy of telemedicine, and patient and clinician satisfaction with the use of telemedicine for headache specialty care, was gathered from a variety of sources, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the authors and the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus.

resultsSeveral randomized clinical trials and observational studies have been performed to compare telemedicine with in-person visits in the management of patients with headache disorders. These studies showed consistently that telemedicine is noninferior to in-person care based upon multiple outcome measures, including disability measures, patient satisfaction, and clinician satisfaction. In addition, these studies found that telemedicine rarely leads to a missed diagnosis of secondary headache or mismanagement of primary headache. Telemedicine has substantial advantages for patients, including improved access to care and reduced costs associated with obtaining care. Studies evaluating health care utilization indicate no significant differences between patients evaluated and treated virtually versus in person. Obvious limitations of telemedicine include the inability to perform an in-person physical exam or to perform injections. For a substantial number of patients, however, these limitations are outweighed by its advantages. The experience with telemedicine reported in the literature is consistent with the experience of the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society, who endorse its use for patients when feasible and appropriate.

conclusionTelemedicine has significantly advanced the care of patients with headache disorders. Its further development and deployment should be supported and reimbursed.

Indexed as

Headache DisordersTelemedicineHumansSocieties, MedicalUnited StatesaccessmigrainetelehealthTelemedicinevirtual

Identifiers

PMID41098085
PMCPMC12951699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.