Talk:Post-concussion syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Post-concussion syndrome has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 5, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Neurology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Good article GA This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Good article GA This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Post-concussion syndrome article.
Article policies


[1] Revert first and ask questions later? Is that policy? 129.7.254.33 06:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right that that's not the normal practice. But in this case, a couple things: first, the info was put in front of a reference, so it made it look like the reference said that, which it didn't. Second, there's no reference for that information. According to the very fundamental verifiability policy, it's the responsibility of the person who wants to add the info to provide a reference for it. So if you want to add the info, all you need to do is find a source for it and cite it. delldot on a public computer talk 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My views

Hi!

Usually in talk pages of articles in Wikipedia, no one is addressed in particular. In this case it's different. I know the one I am addressing has actually nurtured the article since more than last 20 months.

So, hi dilldot (on public computer)!

As I started reading your article, it just occurred to me that I should see the page history. I was amazed and overwhelmed to see the entire article being edited singlehandedly by you. Congratulations! I also happened to see your user page, Wikipedia (and neurology, in particular) seems to keep you really busy. I really feel overwhelmed by users who have put in as much effort as you. Well, I have just gone through "your" article

  • I thought the lead is a bit longer than required. Especially information pertaining to treatment and prognosis should have been restricted. I know though some would disagree with this. But may be leaving that out would leave something to be looked forward to in the article. Moreover, with all the information given in it, it is looking more like a summary rather than a lead, which should be an "initiation" into the article and not the conclusion. Rather some information could be given about the salient features of concussion, viz., that the diagnosis is only on functional bases and that no structural changes are found.
  • Shortened slightly. There's disagreement on the physiological basis of concussion, I think I'll leave discussion of that to concussion. delldot talk 20:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The prevalence of PCS is not well known and varies based on the definition of the syndrome": I believe "prevalence" should be substituted with "incidence" as it is the latter that incorporates the concept of population at risk (in this case those who'd have met with TBI) as it would make better sense in knowing the incidence of PCS following TBI than knowing the prevalence in an entire population. This term (incidence, if and when incorporated) should also be wikilinked as it is an epidemiological term and not to be used loosely.
  • I just went ahead and removed that sentence, it wasn't adding much anyway, and the prevalence thing is dealt with later. delldot on a public computer talk 04:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, this is a personal doubt, not necessarily pertinent to the article, but you've referred to primary and secondary apathy as distinct from primary (endogenous) and secondary (exogenous/reactive) depression? I hope I have used the correct terminology.
  • Uh oh, not sure about this one, I may have introduced distortions. How's this simplification? "Apathy, or lack of motivation, another common symptom in PCS, may result directly from the syndrome or may be secondary to depression." delldot talk 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it be better to change the heading from "Cognition" to "Higher (mental) functions" as I am not completely sure if memory and language (as distinct from speech) would qualify as cognitive functions.
  • Good point. So changed. delldot talk 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Under the heading "Controversy", "physiogenesis" has been wikilinked--firstly I haven't come across the term. It might be used specifically in neurology or psychology, and secondly, there's no entry in Wikipedia against such a term, so it might better to either remove the wikilink and explain the term there itself (which you have done partly), or start an article with that name. I have following suggestion though: "The debate has been referred to as 'psychogenesis versus physiogenesis', because there is question about how much of a role in the syndrome is played by organic factors involving brain dysfunction and how much is played by psychological factors."--->"The debate has been referred to as 'psychogenesis versus physiogenesis', because there is question about how much contribution is respectively made by psychological factors as aginst organic factors involving brain dysfunction. Any way, "how much role played by" was sounding a bit weird.
  • Explained, wikilink removed. Implemented the wording suggestion, thanks! delldot talk 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It'd be better to change the heading to "Possible causes" rather that "Possible etiologies"--Wikipedia is meant for common man, after all--something I'm learning somewhat the harder way nowadays!
  • Another good point. delldot talk 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Proponents of the view that PCS has a physiological basis point to..." The word could be changed to physical or organic, or may be physical. Calling a mechanism leading to a disorder sounds just a bit inappropriate.
  • "However, not all people with PPCS have abnormalities on imaging, and abnormalities in imaging such as fMRI, PET, and SPECT could result from comorbid conditions such as...could be changed to other contributing conditions that would make it less complicated for a common person to understand. Of course, if you are fond of the word, you could put it in braces (comorbid) like this ;)
  • Malingering could be explained in short in the first line of the paragraph.
  • Reworded with explanation. delldot talk 20:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It'd be nice to include some short description of cognitive behavioral therapy in the section dealing with "Psychotherapy"
  • Again in "Epidemiology", the term "prevalence" has been used instead of incidence.
  • I think the deal is that we're talking about how many people have it by a given amount of time after the injury; the sentence in the source I'm citing is, "Prevalence rates at three

months post-injury have been found to range from 24–84%". Reworded for clarification. delldot talk 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I haven't been very harsh in my review.

You must have noticed the entry of an article that I'd created--polyclonal response right below the entry of your nomination for good article. I'd be happy if you could go through it and share some views on it.

Best wishes for "GA" nomination.

Regards.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words and thorough review! Certainly not harsh in the least, very sensible. I've made a few changes and will make more tonight. delldot talk 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headache picture

I'm not convinced that a photo of a woman massaging her temples while reading in the library is a helpful representation in this article. Axl (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I admit it's definitely reaching. I've been having trouble thinking of how to illustrate this article: It's the most frustratingly intangible thing I've ever written about! I can remove the crappy picture. Any other ideas for images? delldot on a public computer talk 09:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I just had a look on Wikimedia Commons, and your young lady is the closest match. I'll keep looking. Axl (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Aww, thank you Axl. Yeah, good luck on that, I didn't have any. :P If you think of any ideas for any images (i.e. not just for the symptoms section), definitely let me know. delldot on a public computer talk 09:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[2] What do you think? Still reaching too much? delldot on a public computer talk 09:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I couldn't find any appropriate headache pictures. Sigh However the EEG picture looks reasonable for this article. Axl (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Post-concussion syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. This is a very good article that does a great job of presenting a controversial topic, but it still has one major issue that prevents me from passing it—the prose. Here are a few suggestions for the lead:

  • “Post-concussion syndrome, also known as postconcussive syndrome or PCS, is a set of symptoms that a person may experience for weeks, months, or occasionally even years after a concussion; a mild form of traumatic brain injury (TBI).” This sentence is ambiguous; it is unclear whether PCS or concussion is a form of traumatic brain injury.
  • "PCS may also occur in moderate and severe TBI." Holy TLA syndrome, starting here and persisting throughout the article. It’s OK to repeat the whole term once in a while, particularly when there are other acronyms close by.
  • “Symptoms of PCS, the most common entity to be diagnosed after TBI...” —Does this mean “the entity most commonly diagnosed in someone following TBI”, or “the second most common diagnosis after TBI”, as in a “top ten” list of diagnoses in those presenting to a neurology service? :)
  • “...may occur in 38–80% of mild head injury sufferers.” Per WP:MEDMOS, please avoid wording such as “sufferers” or “patients”. There are many substitutes you could use without sounding repetitive—“people who have sustained mild head injury”, “those with mild head injury”, “38–80% of mild head injury cases”...
  • “Though there is no treatment for PCS itself, symptoms can be treated with medications and other therapies such as education and physical and behavioral therapy. The majority of PCS cases go away after a period of time.” What sort of education? Education about PCS and its prognosis? You may want to expand on this a little, e.g. “physical symptoms may be treated with medication and physical therapy, and cognitive ones may benefit from behavioral therapy.”
  • The suggestion makes sense, but I'd have to find that explicitly in a source to put it in the article. Does the fix I used work? delldot on a public computer talk 00:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add comments on the remainder of the article later. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the very close attention! Let me know if there are still problems with my fixes. I look forward to seeing your review of the rest of the article! delldot on a public computer talk 00:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking good so far, thank you for the prompt responses. Now, for some more! Let's take it from the bottom, with "History" :)

  • "The controversy surrounding the cause of PCS was started in 1866 when Erichsen published a paper about persisting symptoms after MTBI." I don't think the term "mild traumatic brain injury" was used in the 1860s. Is it used in the source?
  • "The idea of the complex of post-concussion symptoms..." How about "The idea that this set of symptoms forms/constitutes a distinct entity..."? Just a thought.
  • "Later, the idea... was suggested by Charcot." Is this Jean-Martin Charcot? I think we have an article on that guy somewhere.. :)

More to come. Don't change the channel! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

done these -- Gurch (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a ton gurch, you're the best. delldot talk 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here we go:

  • In "Symptoms":
    • "About 10% of people with PCS are sensitive to noise or light..." Develop sensitivity/become sensitive to noise or light, maybe? Or maybe not, if you think that would make the sentence ambiguous. A piped links to photophobia would be nice.
      Rearranged a little to get the link in --Gurch (talk)
    • "One study found that while sufferers of chronic pain without TBI do report post-concussion symptoms..." How about symptoms similar to those found after a concussion/those of PCS"?
      Changed to something along the lines of the latter --Gurch (talk)
    • "...they report fewer symptoms related to memory, slowed thinking, and sensitivity to noise and light than MTBI sufferers do." No "sufferers", please, and keep "patients" to a minimum :)
      Changed by delldot --Gurch (talk)
  • In "Possible causes":
    • "Factors that may cause PPCS may include physiological, psychological, or psychosocial factors..." Why are we starting with PPCS? Wouldn't it be better to lead with a brief discussion of the factors behind symptoms occurring shortly after trauma—after all, their etiology seems far less controversial—and then move on to the complex mix of factors associated with PPCS? "Factors... factors" is redundant.
      Removed the redundant 'factors', haven't done anything else yet --Gurch (talk)
      Rearranged a bit to put the more general info in front. Do you think it actually needs more content, or is this enough? delldot on a public computer talk 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      The prose is reading much more clearly now, and I think the content is just fine. Excellent work :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "...whether symptoms are being exaggerated or feigned, for example for financial gain." Malingering hasn't been discussed yet; I'd drop "for financial gain" altogether and leave it to the later section on malingering.
      Was thinking of doing this before. Removed --Gurch (talk)
    • "Electroencephalograms, while usually normal..." ...usually normal in people with PCS?
      Changed by delldot
    • "The presence of PCS symptoms may be due to a combination of factors, including psychological and physiological ones." Could you... jazz this up a little? As is, it just seems redundant to the introduction of "Possible causes". Sorry for being vague here :)
      I did some rearranging and this sentence ended up very different. Is this ok? delldot on a public computer talk 01:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Proponents of the view that PCS has a physical or organic basis point to findings that concussed people score lower than expected on standardized tests of cognitive function." Wouldn't a decline in cognitive function be expected immediately after a concussion? If the source is talking about a persistent decline in scores, the sentence should be reworded.
      The finding that cognitive scores show deficits (in whatever time frame) is used to support the idea that neurocognitive dysfunction is occurring. Changed the wording, does this fix it? delldot on a public computer talk 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Studies have shown that people with PPCS score lower than controls on neuropsychological tests that measure attention, verbal learning, reasoning, and information processing." Would a link to information processing be appropriate here?
      Done, probably by gurch. delldot on a public computer talk 01:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "...one study found that cognitive and physical symptoms were not predicted by the adjustment of parents and family members after the injury..." Adjustment?
      Better? delldot on a public computer talk 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Psychological":
    • "Symptoms in PCS may be due to psychological or social factors, such as expectations that these symptoms will occur." Again, this seems redundant—I'd much rather have the section start with the sentence that follows ("It has been convincingly shown..."). Do you think you can work "...such as expectations that these symptoms will occur" into another portion of the paragraph?
      Done. delldot on a public computer talk 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Setbacks related to the injury, for example problems with physical, work, or social functioning..." How about Setbacks related to the injury, such as problems with physical or social functioning or [decreased/impaired/altered...] work performance? That would sound better IMHO (if the reference supports it, of course).
      The ref doesn't really specify what kind of setbacks occur at work. Is the slight rewording I did ok? delldot on a public computer talk 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Malingering":
    • "Additionally, people with more severe symptoms may be more likely to sue, all other things being equal." Seems obvious, but a reference would be nice :) I've piped a link to ceteris paribus.
      Tough one. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to find this in a ref, I haven't seen it before. An anon added it I think, it might be OR. I think I'll remove it as such but keep looking for a source for it. delldot on a public computer talk 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not done yet... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant suggestions FV, thanks again for the effort you're putting in to giving this a thorough and thoughtful review. I'll hopefully have time to finish this up at work tonight, if they don't make me work too hard. ;) delldot talk 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the brilliant improvements to match the suggestions ;) I'll go over the rest of the article more thoroughly tonight (a quick read doesn't show much else needing work) and leave my final comments. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

OK, final comments:

  • Under "Diagnosis":
    • "The ICD-10 first proposed a set of diagnostic criteria for PCS in 1992." This is a nitpick, but the ICD-10 doesn't really propose anything. The WHO may propose a set of diagnostic criteria, or it may be codified in the ICD-10.
      How's established? delldot on a public computer talk 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Very impressive work on the table, few articles make good use of them.
      *Bows* ;) delldot on a public computer talk 08:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you think a very brief (single-sentence or even parenthetical) description of the tests named in the last paragraph can be added?
      Is this enough? delldot on a public computer talk 08:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Because of the similarities to other conditions, such as depression, there is a risk that PCS may be misdiagnosed" Hmmm... any condition may be misdiagnosed, and few, if any, could ever be considered so distinctive as to not share characteristics of other diseases :) Do any of the cited sources expand on misdiagnosis, e.g. noting a "significant" risk of misdiagnosis, or that PCS is a "commonly misdiagnosed condition"? I'm basically looking for any qualifier that would assert why this risk is worth noting, and make this a less generic statement.
      I had originally intended this to be a kind of introductory sentence, to bring up the idea of differential diagnosis. Looking at the rest of the paragraph, it seemed redundant so I took it out. Is it too abrupt without it? delldot on a public computer talk 09:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      Added "PCS, which shares symptoms with a variety of other conditions, is highly likely to be misdiagnosed in people with these conditions." delldot on a public computer talk 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Treatment":
    • "There is no scientifically established treatment for PCS, so the syndrome is usually not treated, though specific symptoms can be targeted." This is a really circular sentence. How about something really succinct, along the lines of Post-concussion syndrome is usually not treated, though specific symptoms can be addressed; for example...
      Done. delldot on a public computer talk 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Though no pharmacological treatments exist especially for PCS, doctors may prescribe medications used for symptoms that also occur in other conditions" Since the next sentences claim that medications should be avoided if possible, how about appending if necessary to "doctors may prescribe..."?
      Done. delldot on a public computer talk 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Side effects of medications..." Side effects should link to adverse drug reaction.
      Done. delldot on a public computer talk 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "About 40% of PCS patients are referred to psychological consultation." Is this too few? A lot? Why are they referred? Is this meant to imply that some patients suffer deficits significant enough to warrant psychological treatment, is it meant to imply that more patients should get psychological support, or is it a simple statement of fact?
      It's a simple statement of fact, just a statistic. I rearranged it a little, does the context help? delldot on a public computer talk 11:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "One study found that PCS patients who were coached to return to activities gradually, told what symptoms to expect, and trained how to manage them had a reduction in symptoms compared to a control group of uninjured people." Is my grasp on scientific methodology completely lost at this hour, or should this be a control group of PCS patients who received no such education?
      No, you're not nuts, this is actually a methodological flaw of a lot of PCS studies. Weird, huh? Don't know whether I should take out info from these studies, or maybe make it explicit that these studies have received criticism. delldot on a public computer talk 11:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Prognosis":
    • "Symptoms are largely gone in about half of people with concussion by one month after the injury and about two thirds by three months." How about Symptoms are largely gone in about half of people with concussion one month after the injury, and two thirds of people with minor head trauma are symptom-free within three months.
      Done. delldot on a public computer talk 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "It is commonly believed that 15% of patients still suffer PCS 12 months after the injury, but this figure may be an overestimate because it is based on people admitted to a hospital." Is this actually commonly believed, e.g. mentioned frequently in the literature/part of neurology "lore"? :) "12 months" could me simply changed to "a year".
      That's exactly right--in fact, the ref I just switched to actually uses the words "clinical lore". Reworded and added a bit of info from new source, year thing done. delldot on a public computer talk 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "At least in children, the way in which people cope with the injury after it occurs may have more of an impact than factors that existed prior to the injury." How about just The way in which children...?
      Done. delldot on a public computer talk 08:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Under "Epidemiology":
    • "Since PCS by definition only exists in people who have suffered a head injury, demographics and risk factors are similar to those for head injury; for example, young adults are at higher risk than others for receiving head injury" , and, consequently, of developing PCS?
      Done. delldot on a public computer talk 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Clinical research has found higher rates of PCS in children with TBI than in those with injuries to other parts of the body, and that PCS is more common in anxious children." Perhaps change PCS to post-concussion symptoms to avoid ambiguity?
      Done. delldot on a public computer talk 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Symptoms in children are similar to those in adults, but children exhibit fewer symptoms than do their adult counterparts." Counterparts seems more than a little awkward here. "PCS is rare in young children." How rare? How young? Rarer than in older children? Any more or less controversial a diagnosis in younger kids? Sorry for the third degree, you don't need to expand this—it would just be nice ;)
      No problem, good suggestions. Fixed the counterparts thing, I'll try to find more on the condition in children tonight. delldot talk 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's it. Please don't take it personally if any of the above was inordinately harsh, or unnecessary; I just like to know that I did my best to ensure that a Good Article is actually a good article :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not too harsh at all, everything is very reasonable and on-point. I certainly appreciate yout taking the extra time to do a thorough and high-quality review. I'll work on these and get them done as soon as I can. delldot on a public computer talk 08:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, then. Thank you for your willingness to respond to each point, and for the excellent work. Since there is no deadline and no such thing as a perfect article, you may keep continue to improve and expand the article well after I've passed it as a GA—which I have just done. Congratulations, and don't forget to let me know when it's up at FAC ;) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)