-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
106 migraine patients in an Albanian patient's chohort were examined based on the correlation between migraine and social disability by migraine disability assesment (MIDAS) method. Since the age of the disease was higher in untreated forms, a significant correlation between treatment status and age of the disease was found. Women's migraine was severe than that of men, so that a statistically significant relationship between gender and MIDAS degree was there. However, there were no statistic significant correlation between migraine form (with or without aura) and age of patients, and migraine form and education. Importantly, the authors emphasized that the neurologists have to research the treatment and management of patients to reduce the number of them who suffer from migraine.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
NA
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
NA
-
Other Comments:
The table 1 is difficult for readers to understand. The explanation should be made more carefully and politely. The style of the References must be arranged in uniform. It lead us to think that the manuscript is vague.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Capsaicin and pain
- How to cite: Hiura A .Migraine Burden in an Albanian Patient's Cohort[Review of the article 'Migraine Burden in an Albanian Patient's Cohort ' by Kruja J].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002340
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The authors have used a specific cohort of patients to determine how migraine affects their socio-economic status and break down the study population to identify specific disabilities due to migraines. The claims are justified based on a limited number of patients and a specific questionairre that has been established and used in the past.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
While there are no specific claims that are novel, the study throws light on a significant problem that affects individuals
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
N/A
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
N/A
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
The study does illuminate a neglected medical condition
-
Other Comments:
Socio-economic indications of the effect of migraine in an Albanian cohort has been described in this study. These statistics could be used to reduce the impact of migraine on economic productivity and social lives of these patients. Drug companies could find these data useful for developing a research/development/marketing strategy that can target patients who either remain untreated or choose to withdraw treatment either due to ineffectiveness of the drug or the costs associated with these drugs or other factors.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None
- How to cite: Antony J M.Socio-Economic Costs of Migraine[Review of the article 'Migraine Burden in an Albanian Patient's Cohort ' by Kruja J].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002329
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
There are no claims in the article, which runs like a simple commentary presenting well known data.
The authors have not claimed any novelty or originality.
NA
NA
The article exhibits profound deviations from a well designed protocol and authors themselves do not appear to be aware of it, so no question of adequate explanation of the deviations by the authors.
Partly
Additional information can improve the paper dramatically and it should not be difficult.
Not in any manner.
In the title, patient’s should be replaced by patients’.
In the Abstract section : Full form of MIDAS abbreviation should be used at the very first mention.In method section of the abstract, previous study (2000, MK, JK) should be cited fully.Being judgmental about “correct” and “wrong” treatment and use of such terms cannot be accepted in a scientific article.
Introduction section is devoted completely to presenting well documented simple data that is needless.
The authors have not presented or even outlined the purpose of their study (which is the theme of introduction section). The statement that migraine is most common type of headache requires some references.
Diction is not satisfactory and grammatical errors are in abundance due to which the whole paper lacks clarity and presents severe confusion to the readers.
It lacks the technicalities required for writing a scientific paper. For example:
1. Abstract includes a study without full citation.
2. Introduction lacks its very essence-the Purpose.
3. Tables are not presented in Results section.
None
No
Yes
NA
None