ReviewHeadache2026
Telemedicine is effective and safe for clinical management of patients with headache disorders: An American Headache Society position statement.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geographic variation in certified headache subspecialty availability in the United States.Headache · 2026Article
- An Evolving Definition of Underserved Populations in Headache Medicine.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Review
- Disparities in Headache Care and Research in Children and Adolescents: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Review
- Telemedicine for headache follow-up: feasibility, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported experience from a prospective study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.